Ben Schwartz Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Now that he has made the Giants team. It was really fun seeing a number 3 playing receiver haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJworks Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Hope not, it's pretty unique seeing non-QBs running around with one digit numbers. Can't seem to think of any other players who've done this in the past. Dribbble | Twitter | Facebook | Portfolio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oz615 Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Hope not, it's pretty unique seeing non-QBs running around with one digit numbers. Can't seem to think of any other players who've done this in the past.The most recent player that did this according pro-football-reference.com was Clarence Verdin when he was w/ the Falcon in '94,he wore #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Ugh, I hope.I'm against QB numbers for WR's so much. I can't stand it. It was cool when it was once in a while, now it's just stupid to me.At this point it doesn't matter, might as well make it like college and anyone can wear any number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Ugh, I hope.I'm against QB numbers for WR's so much. I can't stand it. It was cool when it was once in a while, now it's just stupid to me.At this point it doesn't matter, might as well make it like college and anyone can wear any number.A kicker wearing something like 92 would look stupid though, and it does in college. Those numbers just "fit" the big D-Linemen so much better.Wideouts don't look weird in teens or 80's, but it would be weird to see one in 60 wouldn't it?It's definitely because I'm "conditioned" that way...I hate that you can wear whatever in college.Also, remember Reggie Bush wanted to be listed as a QB so he could wear 5 with the Saints, then on gameday be dressed but not listed as a 3rd QB (so as not to be inactive) but the NFL sniffed that out immediately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
floydnimrod Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Isn't WR Mike Williams wearing #1 in Tampa Bay. Or maybe it's the one Seattle... Mancakes: The Bandhttps://twitter.com/FloydNimrod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TornadoGTS Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Isn't WR Mike Williams wearing #1 in Tampa Bay. Or maybe it's the one Seattle...Probably one in Seattle, Mike Williams for Tampa is #19. For the Cruz thing, I think he has to by NFL rules. Facebook: CustomSportsCovers Twitter: CSCovers Quote No because when the Irish came to Ireland and first came in contact with the leprechaun people, they didn't take their land away and force them to move west. Instead, the two groups learned to assimilate peacefully. However, certain tribes of the leprechaun refused to taint the pure blood and moved north into the forests of Ireland, only to be seen rarely, usually at the same time of a rainbows appearance and occasionally at the factories of Lucky Charms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackerBadger Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Isn't WR Mike Williams wearing #1 in Tampa Bay. Or maybe it's the one Seattle...Who does he think he is ... Anthony Carter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiodrama Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Mike Williams (Seattle) wore #1 for the preseason, but has now switched to #17.http://www.seahawks.com/team/roster.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Linebacker Jamar Chaney made the Eagles roster, but as of yet has not been made to switch from his camp number of 49. "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 More sharing options...
kbaker19 Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Yes. The NFL is clear on their numbering policies and WRs can only wear in the 10s and 80s. Devin Hester is an exception because he was in the league at a different position so he didn't have to change. Thanks Dolphins91 for the jersey avatars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nybatt Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 Now that he has made the Giants team. It was really fun seeing a number 3 playing receiver haha.I believe Cruz has been assigned #80 for the season... quickly filling the recently departed Derrick Hagan's uniform number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Did you know that in 1993 was when the NFL actually put in the regulation on WR numbers (80-89). I remember Michael Jackson of the Cleveland Browns wearing #1 in 1991-1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Um, no, the "80-89 rule" was in effect long before that. The numbering system was implemented I believe in 1973 (could be wrong about the exact year but know it was in the early 70's), with a grandfather clause for then-active players. Exceptions can be made, but prior to the Goodell era they were rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Yes, the rule was implemented in 1973, after a first rough draft in 1952. The rule was amended in 1989 and again in the early 2000s (to add 10-19 to the WR numbers).Jackson got away with #1 for the first few weeks of the season, but in October the League made him change to an approved WR number in the 80s. Ah, the pre-24-hour media world, that such a thing might escape notice even for a day.... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Now that he has made the Giants team. It was really fun seeing a number 3 playing receiver haha.I believe Cruz has been assigned #80 for the season... quickly filling the recently departed Derrick Hagan's uniform number.Cruz is now #80 officially. During the preseason WRs Cruz and Boateng wore numbers 3 & 2 respectively due to a shortage in numbers...numbers 10-19 and 80-89 were either occupied or retired except for #17 (Plaxico). (MLF) Chicago Cannons, (IHA) Phoenix Firebirds - 2021 Xtreme Cup Champions (WAFL) Phoenix Federals - WAFL World Bowl XII Champions (Defunct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Yes, the rule was implemented in 1973, after a first rough draft in 1952. The rule was amended in 1989 and again in the early 2000s (to add 10-19 to the WR numbers).Jackson got away with #1 for the first few weeks of the season, but in October the League made him change to an approved WR number in the 80s. Ah, the pre-24-hour media world, that such a thing might escape notice even for a day....If he was allowed to wear it the first few weeks of the season, why when you look up rosters of the Cleveland Browns he is listed as #1 for the years of 1991 and 1992? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 7, 2010 Share Posted September 7, 2010 Well, it's not surprising that the 1982 records would have #1, since that was the number he started the season with and intended to wear all year.As for 1991, I can't honestly say. Perhaps nobody was really paying attention. Perhaps the NFL wasn't monitoring those things at the time. 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.