rmered Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Rice should have enough respect for the game not to even ask for 80. This is my opinion, expressed more succinctly and eloquently than I could have.Largent is hardly going to say "No" if asked by Jerry Rice.The fact that he agrees to it should have no bearing whatsoever. Oh, and I've got a site.Footy Jumpers Dot Com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick 1733 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Hawks, like the Raiders, do not retire numbers. The honor the player but no retire the number. I believe the Cowboys do the same thing.and they did the proper thing by asking Largent. It is not like K.Winslow II coming in and demanding it with out ever even making a catch in the NFL. COMPLETELY FALSE....The Seahawks did in fact retire 2 numbers.#12 for the fans.#80 Steve Largent Actually not true. Just saw on SportsCenter that the Seahawks never OFFICIALLY retired the #80, no one has worn it since but the club never officially retired it.I don't know what my view is on it, I personally think he could just wear 89 (the only 80's # available). But he asked Largent, so at least he had the respect to. MLB, NBA, NFL & NHL Font Packs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Actually not true. Just saw on SportsCenter that the Seahawks never OFFICIALLY retired the #80, no one has worn it since but the club never officially retired it.Echoing information that has already been posted:Number 80 is back for the Seahawks. Jerry Rice has worn #80 throughout his NFL career, and in an extraordinary move he will continue to do so with the Seahawks. Rice spoke with Steve Largent seeking permission to wear Largent's retired #80, and Largent gave his immediate approval.#80 Is Back "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 *sigh*Direct from the Seattle Seahawks:KIRKLAND - Number 80 is back for the Seahawks. Jerry Rice has worn #80 throughout his NFL career, and in an extraordinary move he will continue to do so with the Seahawks. Rice spoke with Steve Largent seeking permission to wear Largent's retired #80, and Largent gave his immediate approval."He just told me, ?Jerry, if you want to wear the #80, you have my blessing'," said Rice at his press conference Tuesday. "When he said that it sent chills through my body, because I know what he has done for this city, and when you think about the Seattle Seahawks you think about Steve Largent. For him to just say that without any hesitation, that I could wear his jersey, that meant the world to me.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Rice should have enough respect for the game not to even ask for 80. I think the NFL should make exceptions...Being #80 is a part of Jerry Rice moreso than being #80 was a part of Steve Largent. This is in part due to Jerry Rice being by far the greatest wide receiver of all time. TMQ did a stats analysis on this one, and Jerry Rice was more dominant at his position than anyone in the history of the big 4 sports.However, the number is retired, and so it makes the decision very difficult. Which is why I believe the practice of retiring numbers should be abandoned. I have no problem with hanging jerseys in the rafters and honouring players, but some day, a team will inevitably run out of numbers, and then where will they be? Add a third digit, or switch to hexadecimal."Yes, my son would like number '7B'. Already retired? Oh well, in that case, '336' will do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMMF Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Rice should have enough respect for the game not to even ask for 80. I think the NFL should make exceptions...Being #80 is a part of Jerry Rice moreso than being #80 was a part of Steve Largent. That may be true in the Bay Area and the rest of the country but certainly not up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshawaggie Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I'm torn on the issue slightly, largent is the Seahawks... but Rice is the greatest ever** Combined with that tidbit, the fact that Largent never wore this current uniform, and he will probably only be around for a year, I think its OK.**Untill Randy Moss is done with his career @josh_j12 CFA- Fargo Bobcats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_xmt Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Being from Seattle and a lifetime Seahawk fan, I am a little torn on this. Largent always WAS and always WILL BE #80 for the Seahawks. However, Jerry Rice IS a Hall of Famer and has always been #80. The Seahawks almost owe it to him to give him the number. Fortunately for all, Largent showed why he was is so revered in this town. He had the class to make it a non-issue of it and grant Rice permission to use #80.On the subject of retired numbers. I think most teams do it all wrong. All too often, they retire numbers for "popular" players and not great ones (Harold Baines comes to mind). They will sometimes retire numbers immediately after a player leaves (Harold Baines comes to mind) or wait WAY too long to do it (Dick Butkus comes to mind).I think teams should use the following criteria: Played for more than 10 years with the team and has been inducted into that sport's Hall of Fame (no longer active). OR a GREAT player that died prematurely (and will be in the Hall of Fame some day).For example, I loved Jay Buhner, but if the Mariners retire #19, I might just puke!!!Leagues shouldn't allow teams to do gimmick retirements either. NFL teams should only be allowed to retire the #12 if a PLAYER actually meets the criteria (I always hated that about the Seahawks).Once a number is retired, that number should "belong" to the person that is being honored. That person (or even their decendants) should have the ability to allow someone to "borrow" the number for a period of time. (In this case, #80 is still retired for Largent, he's just letting another great player borrow it for a year or two). The should even be allowed to unretire the number if they feel like it (like Willie Mays wanted to allow Barry Bonds to were #24).While I hate the Cowpies, they might have the right idea. Don't retire anybody's number. Just put them in a "ring of fame". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Personally I don't think numbers should be retired. Aside from the eventual impracticality of it, and the fine line of whose number does and doesn't get pulled, I'm sure many great ex-players would like to see their numerical legacy carried on by a future young talent. It should be the choice of such greats who gets their number and when, but I think they should feel obliged to pass their number on at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paynomind Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Being from Seattle and a lifetime Seahawk fan, I am a little torn on this. Largent always WAS and always WILL BE #80 for the Seahawks. However, Jerry Rice IS a Hall of Famer and has always been #80. The Seahawks almost owe it to him to give him the number. Fortunately for all, Largent showed why he was is so revered in this town. He had the class to make it a non-issue of it and grant Rice permission to use #80.On the subject of retired numbers. I think most teams do it all wrong. All too often, they retire numbers for "popular" players and not great ones (Harold Baines comes to mind). They will sometimes retire numbers immediately after a player leaves (Harold Baines comes to mind) or wait WAY too long to do it (Dick Butkus comes to mind).I think teams should use the following criteria: Played for more than 10 years with the team and has been inducted into that sport's Hall of Fame (no longer active). OR a GREAT player that died prematurely (and will be in the Hall of Fame some day).For example, I loved Jay Buhner, but if the Mariners retire #19, I might just puke!!!Leagues shouldn't allow teams to do gimmick retirements either. NFL teams should only be allowed to retire the #12 if a PLAYER actually meets the criteria (I always hated that about the Seahawks).Once a number is retired, that number should "belong" to the person that is being honored. That person (or even their decendants) should have the ability to allow someone to "borrow" the number for a period of time. (In this case, #80 is still retired for Largent, he's just letting another great player borrow it for a year or two). The should even be allowed to unretire the number if they feel like it (like Willie Mays wanted to allow Barry Bonds to were #24).While I hate the Cowpies, they might have the right idea. Don't retire anybody's number. Just put them in a "ring of fame". Mr OnePost.. I agree completely.. with all of that. Well done.All of the 'for instance' examples you guys come up with, the guy taking the number isnt JERRY FREAKIN RICE. This isn't like Keenan McCardell come to the Hawks and asked for 80, its Jerry Rice, people.Plus, when Jerry leaves, 80 can go back to being retired for Largent, and this all blows over. NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi  ΓΔΒ!  Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon. "...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Until the likes of Matt Hasselbeck & Shaun Alexander retire, Steve Largent is the Seahawks (echoing that which has already been said), & number 80 is Steve Largent. Jerry Rice shouldn't shame his jersey with the washed up has-been that he has become. Rice has hung on way too long. I thought this when he joined the Raiders. He's like the Michael Jordan of football. Yes, he may be the best ever, but he should've never joined a second team. Just think. What if Dan Marino had joined, say, the Cardinals. What if John Elway had joined the Chiefs. You see where I'm going? Back to the point... No one should wear a Seahawks' #80 besides Steve Largent. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez Street Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Even Joe Montana chosea different number. He could have went with #16, eventhough it was Len Dawson's retired number. I think Lenny even told him he could wear it. But Montana decided to flip the 6 upside down and go with #19. I think that's classy. @DavidStreeter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYawkSeahawk Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Hawks, like the Raiders, do not retire numbers. The honor the player but no retire the number. I believe the Cowboys do the same thing.and they did the proper thing by asking Largent. It is not like K.Winslow II coming in and demanding it with out ever even making a catch in the NFL. COMPLETELY FALSE....The Seahawks did in fact retire 2 numbers.#12 for the fans.#80 Steve Largent Actually not true. Just saw on SportsCenter that the Seahawks never OFFICIALLY retired the #80, no one has worn it since but the club never officially retired it.I don't know what my view is on it, I personally think he could just wear 89 (the only 80's # available). But he asked Largent, so at least he had the respect to. Why must people doubt me?LOL www.briandoakes.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grish Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Montana chose is high school number.I have never seen an official retirement of 80 by the 'Hawks as the did for 12. "Try not to have a good time ... This is supposed to be educational."- Charles Schulz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRYWHIT Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Is wrong! He sould have changed # out of respect for Largent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I don't doubt you, NewYawk. The Seahawks have two retired numbers. SportsCenter is plain wrong if they said otherwise.I wonder if they'll try to retire #80 again after he retires, for both men, to try to have some of Rice's old glory rub off on them? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Red Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Doubt it. I think it will go back to being completely Largents one it is retired.I feel the same exact way as paynomind and mr. one post. The guy that was GIVEN PERMISSION to wear his number is not just a legend, not just a first ballot hall of famer, but the greatest WR ever, and there's not even an argument about it.More important than the fact that the number is retired is that Largent gave him permission to use the number. Should there even be a discussion about whether this is right or wrong?The #80 will always be synonymous with Jerry Rice, bottomline. Let him wear it. Jerry Rice without the #80 will look like Michael Jordan wearing the #45 -- completely wrong. It will be for like, 2 years max! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 1 - Largent is classier than to say that Rice couldn't wear the number, so that point is moot. (not , not mute, moot).2 - I'll interject that Don Hutson was a helluva receiver, and would ask you to refrain from calling Rice the greatest receiver ever until his records are still standing 40 years after he retires.3 - Wearing 16 as a tribute to Montana would have been cool, and I imagine a trade could have been worked out with Rouen. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Red Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 1 - Largent is classier than to say that Rice couldn't wear the number, so that point is moot. (not , not mute, moot).2 - I'll interject that Don Hutson was a helluva receiver, and would ask you to refrain from calling Rice the greatest receiver ever until his records are still standing 40 years after he retires.3 - Wearing 16 as a tribute to Montana would have been cool, and I imagine a trade could have been worked out with Rouen. We're not saying 'Jerry Rice is the best reciever in NFL history + the next 40 years'Bottomline is that Jerry Rice is the greatest WR ever and you'll be hardpressed to find anyone who agrees with you that there is even an argument. I've herad a lot of people of the opinion that Jerry Rice may just be the best NFL Player ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 What Sec was saying is that until Rice's records can last 40+ years before being broken, you can't compare him to Hutson.Hutson invented modern pass receiving. He created Z-outs, buttonhooks, hook-and-gos, and a whole catalog of moves and fakes.I think Rice is amazing, and certainly the best WR since the merger, but "in history?" I don't think so. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.