NFL Position/Number Rules

[whitedawg22]

Why should the Saints or the NFL jump thru hoops for one player who acted like a baby because he couldnt get a number he wanted. Jim Jensen wore 11 because he was always listed as a QB first it's the same reason Kordell Stewart wore 10 during his slash days.

The Saints had an incentive to jump through hoops for Bush (who evidently "acted like a baby" - I must have been asleep) because it would have created a marketing bonanza. During this controversy, economists were projecting that having such a unique number for a RB, as well as one that was highly identifiable from his Heisman-winning college years, would boost his jersey sales.

I know Jim Jensen was a QB in college, but for most of his career he didn't even take reps at the position. Here are some historic rosters for the Dolphins - note how he is listed on all of them:

1981 Dolphins (rookie year)

1984 Dolphins

1990 Dolphins

1992 Dolphins (final year)

He never attempted more than one pass in a season, and he finished his career with 7 passing attempts (all off trick plays), as opposed to 229 catches and 26 rushing attempts. There is no credible way he could be considered a QB (unlike Kordell), yet he was allowed to wear #11 before that was legal for WRs.

Couldn't the Saints have designated Bush a QB (or a punter, or whatever), given him #5, and never played him there? How would that be any different?

[BlueSky]

Why should the Saints or the NFL jump thru hoops for one player who acted like a baby because he couldnt get a number he wanted. Jim Jensen wore 11 because he was always listed as a QB first it's the same reason Kordell Stewart wore 10 during his slash days.

The Saints had an incentive to jump through hoops for Bush (who evidently "acted like a baby" - I must have been asleep) because it would have created a marketing bonanza. During this controversy, economists were projecting that having such a unique number for a RB, as well as one that was highly identifiable from his Heisman-winning college years, would boost his jersey sales.

I know Jim Jensen was a QB in college, but for most of his career he didn't even take reps at the position. Here are some historic rosters for the Dolphins - note how he is listed on all of them:

1981 Dolphins (rookie year)

1984 Dolphins

1990 Dolphins

1992 Dolphins (final year)

He never attempted more than one pass in a season, and he finished his career with 7 passing attempts (all off trick plays), as opposed to 229 catches and 26 rushing attempts. There is no credible way he could be considered a QB (unlike Kordell), yet he was allowed to wear #11 before that was legal for WRs.

Couldn't the Saints have designated Bush a QB (or a punter, or whatever), given him #5, and never played him there? How would that be any different?

One complication was that QB Adrian McPherson already had #5 for the Saints. He switched to #1, at least until he was run down by a raccoon mascot and eventually released, but my understanding is that the 'modern-era' NFL won't stand for teams circumventing the rule as you described.

[Luigi74]

Why should the Saints or the NFL jump thru hoops for one player who acted like a baby because he couldnt get a number he wanted. Jim Jensen wore 11 because he was always listed as a QB first it's the same reason Kordell Stewart wore 10 during his slash days.

The Saints had an incentive to jump through hoops for Bush (who evidently "acted like a baby" - I must have been asleep) because it would have created a marketing bonanza. During this controversy, economists were projecting that having such a unique number for a RB, as well as one that was highly identifiable from his Heisman-winning college years, would boost his jersey sales.

I know Jim Jensen was a QB in college, but for most of his career he didn't even take reps at the position. Here are some historic rosters for the Dolphins - note how he is listed on all of them:

1981 Dolphins (rookie year)

1984 Dolphins

1990 Dolphins

1992 Dolphins (final year)

He never attempted more than one pass in a season, and he finished his career with 7 passing attempts (all off trick plays), as opposed to 229 catches and 26 rushing attempts. There is no credible way he could be considered a QB (unlike Kordell), yet he was allowed to wear #11 before that was legal for WRs.

Couldn't the Saints have designated Bush a QB (or a punter, or whatever), given him #5, and never played him there? How would that be any different?

I have to dig up some old programs but I always remembered Jensen being listed as QB/WR in them.

[Telemundo219]

Actually Dallas Clark, i think, was a fullback for a while, and became a tight end maybe like two seasons ago. 44 is a fullback/halfback number so he kind of has the right to kep the number.

[WJMorris3]

Why should the Saints or the NFL jump thru hoops for one player who acted like a baby because he couldnt get a number he wanted. Jim Jensen wore 11 because he was always listed as a QB first it's the same reason Kordell Stewart wore 10 during his slash days.

The Saints had an incentive to jump through hoops for Bush (who evidently "acted like a baby" - I must have been asleep) because it would have created a marketing bonanza. During this controversy, economists were projecting that having such a unique number for a RB, as well as one that was highly identifiable from his Heisman-winning college years, would boost his jersey sales.

I know Jim Jensen was a QB in college, but for most of his career he didn't even take reps at the position. Here are some historic rosters for the Dolphins - note how he is listed on all of them:

1981 Dolphins (rookie year)

1984 Dolphins

1990 Dolphins

1992 Dolphins (final year)

He never attempted more than one pass in a season, and he finished his career with 7 passing attempts (all off trick plays), as opposed to 229 catches and 26 rushing attempts. There is no credible way he could be considered a QB (unlike Kordell), yet he was allowed to wear #11 before that was legal for WRs.

Couldn't the Saints have designated Bush a QB (or a punter, or whatever), given him #5, and never played him there? How would that be any different?

One complication was that QB Adrian McPherson already had #5 for the Saints. He switched to #1, at least until he was run down by a raccoon mascot and eventually released, but my understanding is that the 'modern-era' NFL won't stand for teams circumventing the rule as you described.

Another complication about naming him a quarterback would be that in case of injury to Brees, McPherson would not be able to play, because he'd be the third quarterback (behind Brees and Bush). By rule, if he plays before the 4th quarter, neither of the other two quarterbacks can play.

[VitaminD]

That is where the rule gets shady since TE's and WR's seem to be able to hang onto non-80's numbers after pre-season while DB's and RB's stuck with an out of range number always switch to a legal one once the season starts.

There's nothing shady about it. Tight ends can wear numbers in the 40s, and a few have been doing so for a few years. Receivers can stay with numbers in the teens if there were no numbers in the 80s available when they joined the team.

And you're going to have to show us some proof of RBs and DBs wearing "out of range" numbers. I can't recall seeing one, even in preseason. Furthermore, the likelihood of a team being fully out of EVERY number from 20-49, even in preseason, is virtually nil. This isn't D-1 college football, where literally a hundred guys or more dress for games, and you need to use all kinds of wacky numbers (sometimes twice). On the other hand, it is entirely likely that a team uses up all of its 80s during preseason; you're talking about 10 numbers to be shared by EVERY WR and TE on a training camp roster versus 30 numbers to be shared by RBs and DBs. Even with jersey retirements, most teams have plenty of numbers for all non-QB backs.