Jump to content

2005 NFL Rookies


thefoofighter

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
If Rodgers doesn't play any better than the Packers' last top-round QB pick - Rich Campbell, also out of California - he could wear No. 99 and it wouldn't matter.

Notable 12s in Green Bay - Zeke Bratkowski, Lynn Dickey.

Not so notable 12s in Green Bay - T.J. Rubley (Tuesday).

Don't forget the following stellar QBs (listed with college and the year each wore the number 12):

Del Gaizo, Jim (QB), Tampa 1973

*Hadl, John (QB), Kansas 1974

Milan, Don (QB), Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 1975

**Dowling, Brian (QB), Yale 1977

* - Later wore 21 with the Packers

** - That's "BD" of Doonesbury fame

It's where I sit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Patterson - #98

For the other Eagles fans out there - the roster on philadelphiaeagles.com is updated with all the rookies (R. Brown #86, R. Moats #23, S. Considine #37...)

For those of you who aren't Eagles fans... :blink:

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cedric "The Running Back" Benson will wear....

Benson2_inside042505.jpg

Just kidding.

Todd Johnson (safety) currently wears 32. He's on the likely to be cut list, so Benson will more than likely end up with the Big 3-2. Other options...35 (A-train's old number...probably not a good idea), 38, 28 (both different but could be cool), and then, no clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah my bet is that Ced will end up with 32, cuz even if Todd doesn't get cut I'm sure he'll realize that he is Todd Johnson and he's not the caliber player that can have number security :D I don't really care what number Benson wears, I still wish it was Mike Williams up there holding that #1 jersey....*sigh* <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else hate the WR number rule like I still do so much? I think it looks ridiculous to see Williams and Fitzgerald out catching passes in 11. I mean preseason is one thing but c'mon it just looks amateurish. Receivers should always wear 80's.

I dont like it. They should be able to use those numbers for training camp/preseason only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else hate the WR number rule like I still do so much? I think it looks ridiculous to see Williams and Fitzgerald out catching passes in 11. I mean preseason is one thing but c'mon it just looks amateurish. Receivers should always wear 80's.

I know there is a lot of sentiment against this rule, but I side with you on this, Chazberg. "Amateurish" is the perfect word. The WRs in the teens used to be the guys who you'd watch in that last preseason game, just knowing they'd be gone by Tuesday morning.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else hate the WR number rule like I still do so much? I think it looks ridiculous to see Williams and Fitzgerald out catching passes in 11. I mean preseason is one thing but c'mon it just looks amateurish. Receivers should always wear 80's.

I know there is a lot of sentiment against this rule, but I side with you on this, Chazberg. "Amateurish" is the perfect word. The WRs in the teens used to be the guys who you'd watch in that last preseason game, just knowing they'd be gone by Tuesday morning.

You know, it just doesn't bother me. It's different, I'll grant you, but not bad. What would bug me more is if they started putting quarterbacks in the twenties, a la Doug Flutie at BC. That's collegiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it just doesn't bother me. It's different, I'll grant you, but not bad. What would bug me more is if they started putting quarterbacks in the twenties, a la Doug Flutie at BC. That's collegiate.

Did the NCAA formally legislate that out? I can't remember anyone after Flutie's #22 and Kosar's #20 at UM, but that was bizarre.

"Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."

2007nleastchamps.png

In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cedric "The Running Back" Benson will wear....

Benson2_inside042505.jpg

Just kidding. 

Todd Johnson (safety) currently wears 32.  He's on the likely to be cut list, so Benson will more than likely end up with the Big 3-2.  Other options...35 (A-train's old number...probably not a good idea), 38, 28 (both different but could be cool),  and then, no clue.

Benson should take 31 or 39 and follow in the tradition of first round Chicago busts.

6uXNWAo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it just doesn't bother me.  It's different, I'll grant you, but not bad.  What would bug me more is if they started putting quarterbacks in the twenties, a la Doug Flutie at BC.  That's collegiate.

Did the NCAA formally legislate that out? I can't remember anyone after Flutie's #22 and Kosar's #20 at UM, but that was bizarre.

Heath Shuler wore 20 at Tennessee, and Jared Lorenzen wore 22 at Kentucky. I don't think the NCAA has regulated the numbers. Most people probably figure it just looks ridiculous for a QB to be in the 20s.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else hate the WR number rule like I still do so much? I think it looks ridiculous to see Williams and Fitzgerald out catching passes in 11. I mean preseason is one thing but c'mon it just looks amateurish. Receivers should always wear 80's.

I know there is a lot of sentiment against this rule, but I side with you on this, Chazberg. "Amateurish" is the perfect word. The WRs in the teens used to be the guys who you'd watch in that last preseason game, just knowing they'd be gone by Tuesday morning.

I don't like the rule either. If there isn't enough 80s numbers anymore, why can't TEs wear 40s? Or, make 90s the standard "end" number, so TEs and DEs (possibly OLBs in a 3-4) would wear it (it would be eligable.) Nowadays, the DE position is becoming a more athletic and less fat-guy type position anyway.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.