tBBP Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I'm honestly surprised at the amount of blow-up going on up in here behind this whole #18 thing. *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 If you believe that. Which I'm not sure I do.I agree. It was a good spin for the press conference, but whether or not that's how it really went down... who knows. We'll just have to take Manning at his word, but some "18 needs to be unretired by the Broncos" stories were floated well before he signed. Here's the LA Times story I referenced earlier that said he had 14 and 16 jerseys ready: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/20/sports/la-sp-peyton-manning-broncos-20120321 They ought to auction those off for charity... if they really exist. I just think it's in poor taste. A retired number should be retired, period. And, Manning missed a golden opportunity to show some class in that he could have come out a complete hero if he would have said, thanks, but that number is yours, I'll make a new number historic. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandMooreArt Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 If you believe that. Which I'm not sure I do.I agree. It was a good spin for the press conference, but whether or not that's how it really went down... who knows. We'll just have to take Manning at his word, but some "18 needs to be unretired by the Broncos" stories were floated well before he signed. Here's the LA Times story I referenced earlier that said he had 14 and 16 jerseys ready: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/20/sports/la-sp-peyton-manning-broncos-20120321 They ought to auction those off for charity... if they really exist. I just think it's in poor taste. A retired number should be retired, period. And, Manning missed a golden opportunity to show some class in that he could have come out a complete hero if he would have said, thanks, but that number is yours, I'll make a new number historic.i think he would have been insulting the guy if he DIDN'T wear 18. for all we know what Peyton has said is true, i dont think theres any reason not to believe him. i mean if Tribuka called and said "sonny, they retired that number for ME and i m telling you i want you to wear it. i wouldnt want anyone else to do it but you and it'd be an honor for you to wear 18 and if any wippersnapper has a problem with it they can come see me". how could you say no? GRAPHIC ARTIST BEHANCE / MEDIUM / DRIBBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrypep Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Otherwise unretire them all and switch to the Cowboys model. It's what the Suns, Seahawks, Marlins and now Broncos should all do now, because they've rendered their retired numbers meaningless.The Cowboys Model? What is that? They haven't issued 12 since Staubach retired. How about "The Raiders Model" - they truly do not retire any numbers (except for 00, which was outlawed by the NFL). They've issued any and all numbers repeatedly - and they've had some great ones - 32, 12, 75, 16, 21, 25, 78, 63. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm honestly surprised at the amount of blow-up going on up in here behind this whole #18 thing.Buc, my man, when are you just going to realize you are smarter and better than everyone on here?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Otherwise unretire them all and switch to the Cowboys model. It's what the Suns, Seahawks, Marlins and now Broncos should all do now, because they've rendered their retired numbers meaningless.The Cowboys Model? What is that? They haven't issued 12 since Staubach retired. How about "The Raiders Model" - they truly do not retire any numbers (except for 00, which was outlawed by the NFL). They've issued any and all numbers repeatedly - and they've had some great ones - 32, 12, 75, 16, 21, 25, 78, 63."Not issued" isn't retired. Makes it easier if Tom Brady or some other 12 ever came calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm honestly surprised at the amount of blow-up going on up in here behind this whole #18 thing.Seriously. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Agree with Buc but speaking in general, the whole retiring numbers thing isn't viable over time. No matter how strict a team's criteria and/or how bad the team is, sooner or later there will be so many players "deserving" to have their numbers retired that there wouldn't be enough left to go around. The only Saints number I've never seen again is Archie's #8. I think the Ring of Honor way of paying tribute is more realistic than retiring numbers.With all that said, it's still jarring sometimes when you see a number a guy made famous worn by a run-of-the-mill player.And going to another sport, I salute and admire Jackie Robinson but retiring 42 through all of MLB? Over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy B Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Agree with Buc but speaking in general, the whole retiring numbers thing isn't viable over time. No matter how strict a team's criteria and/or how bad the team is, sooner or later there will be so many players "deserving" to have their numbers retired that there wouldn't be enough left to go around. The only Saints number I've never seen again is Archie's #8. I think the Ring of Honor way of paying tribute is more realistic than retiring numbers.With all that said, it's still jarring sometimes when you see a number a guy made famous worn by a run-of-the-mill player.And going to another sport, I salute and admire Jackie Robinson but retiring 42 through all of MLB? Over the top.I was just thinking about this and sooner or later teams with retired numbers are going to have to abandon retiring numbers and switch over to a ring of honor type system. How long that takes will depend on each team and their methods of retiring numbers, but it's going to have to happen eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Agree with Buc but speaking in general, the whole retiring numbers thing isn't viable over time. No matter how strict a team's criteria and/or how bad the team is, sooner or later there will be so many players "deserving" to have their numbers retired that there wouldn't be enough left to go around. The only Saints number I've never seen again is Archie's #8. I think the Ring of Honor way of paying tribute is more realistic than retiring numbers.With all that said, it's still jarring sometimes when you see a number a guy made famous worn by a run-of-the-mill player.And going to another sport, I salute and admire Jackie Robinson but retiring 42 through all of MLB? Over the top.I was just thinking about this and sooner or later teams with retired numbers are going to have to abandon retiring numbers and switch over to a ring of honor type system. How long that takes will depend on each team and their methods of retiring numbers, but it's going to have to happen eventually.Except that the NFL has realized that, and has told teams that you can't retire numbers any more, you can only retire jerseys. So, you could retire a jersey with #18 on it in Indianapolis, and hang it the wall, but the number could still be assigned. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Agree with Buc but speaking in general, the whole retiring numbers thing isn't viable over time. No matter how strict a team's criteria and/or how bad the team is, sooner or later there will be so many players "deserving" to have their numbers retired that there wouldn't be enough left to go around. The only Saints number I've never seen again is Archie's #8. I think the Ring of Honor way of paying tribute is more realistic than retiring numbers.With all that said, it's still jarring sometimes when you see a number a guy made famous worn by a run-of-the-mill player.And going to another sport, I salute and admire Jackie Robinson but retiring 42 through all of MLB? Over the top.I was just thinking about this and sooner or later teams with retired numbers are going to have to abandon retiring numbers and switch over to a ring of honor type system. How long that takes will depend on each team and their methods of retiring numbers, but it's going to have to happen eventually.Except that the NFL has realized that, and has told teams that you can't retire numbers any more, you can only retire jerseys. When did the NFL come down with that mandate? Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I'm had this discussion with others before...Football is the only major sport I know that has a position-specific numbering system. So if you were to retire a number in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc, you are potentially limiting the available roster spots for those players that must wear those numbers by rule.If anyone could wear any number, then retiring them is not an issue.Even the Celtics, who have an obscene amount of retired numbers, aren't limiting the future roster, since NBA players can wear whatever number they wish. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Agree with Buc but speaking in general, the whole retiring numbers thing isn't viable over time. No matter how strict a team's criteria and/or how bad the team is, sooner or later there will be so many players "deserving" to have their numbers retired that there wouldn't be enough left to go around. The only Saints number I've never seen again is Archie's #8. I think the Ring of Honor way of paying tribute is more realistic than retiring numbers.With all that said, it's still jarring sometimes when you see a number a guy made famous worn by a run-of-the-mill player.And going to another sport, I salute and admire Jackie Robinson but retiring 42 through all of MLB? Over the top.I was just thinking about this and sooner or later teams with retired numbers are going to have to abandon retiring numbers and switch over to a ring of honor type system. How long that takes will depend on each team and their methods of retiring numbers, but it's going to have to happen eventually.Except that the NFL has realized that, and has told teams that you can't retire numbers any more, you can only retire jerseys. When did the NFL come down with that mandate?Trying to find it. I recall it coming up when the Packers retired 92 for Reggie White. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I do believe that the NFL has backed off on that one. Nobody doubts that Green Bay will retire #4. Not "retire the jersey" or some other euphemism. 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.