PDA

View Full Version : Retired Numbers



giants8493
08-07-2012, 03:29 PM
I feel like I am the only one that doesn't like retiring a number. What will happen if we start running out of numbers? Does anyone else think of this as a potential issue? If the game survives a hundred more years would we start going into fractions? The whole process just seems a little short sighted to me. I know its not a big deal but, what do you think will happen? Will we stop retiring numbers eventually? Will we start reusing them? Or am I crazy to think this could be a problem?

nhpgiantsfan
08-07-2012, 04:02 PM
What has brought this on. We haven't retired a number since Simms. It's not like they do it often. If they stick only to all time greats, it really won't be an issue for a very, very long time, at which point they can re-issue the numbers if they had to, starting with the numbers that have been retired the longest. At that point there will be no one around that saw those players play anyway. At this point, #92 is the only one up for depate right now. #10 will be next.

PBTimmons
08-07-2012, 04:04 PM
I believe they will start un-retiring numbers eventually. #56 will probably stay retired if they do, though.

nygpolishpunk
08-07-2012, 04:54 PM
I believe they will start un-retiring numbers eventually. #56 will probably stay retired if they do, though.It better, you can't un-retire a legend

SweetZombieJesus
08-07-2012, 04:56 PM
I think it's the opposite of short-sighted. IMO it is a big part of the legacy and institutional memory of a franchise.

The Yankees have retired 17 numbers and #2 and #6 will probably join them soon.

Frankly I wouldn't mind expanding to three digit numbers if required but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I don't like that Carson's 53 is not retired, for example. Technically for the moment neither is #92.

We only really need more numbers at this time of year when there are a flood of training camp fodder that need numbers and they will be cut or put on the practice squad. Once we get down to the final 53 man roster everything is fine. Perhaps when you're on the practice squad you get a 3 digit number and when/if you make the final roster you get a two digit number, that's a good compromise.

They could also make each digit alphanumeric (e.g. 1A) and that would give them 1300 combinations in two characters.

giants8493
08-07-2012, 05:33 PM
I think it's the opposite of short-sighted. IMO it is a big part of the legacy and institutional memory of a franchise.

The Yankees have retired 17 numbers and #2 and #6 will probably join them soon.

Frankly I wouldn't mind expanding to three digit numbers if required but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I don't like that Carson's 53 is not retired, for example. Technically for the moment neither is #92.

We only really need more numbers at this time of year when there are a flood of training camp fodder that need numbers and they will be cut or put on the practice squad. Once we get down to the final 53 man roster everything is fine. Perhaps when you're on the practice squad you get a 3 digit number and when/if you make the final roster you get a two digit number, that's a good compromise.

They could also make each digit alphanumeric (e.g. 1A) and that would give them 1300 combinations in two characters.Baseball is a little different though. I think any player can have any number. A Line backer can not be #3 correct? I think they may have to go with 0 and 00 eventually too. Practice squad guys going with 1a 1b 2a I think is a good idea. Unproven players will have to earn their number. I like it.

Captain Chaos
08-07-2012, 05:38 PM
Retiring to many numbers of great players is a good problem to have; Break out the triple digits!!!!!!!!!!!!

jomo
08-07-2012, 05:57 PM
So long as we are keeping the bar high, I've got no problem with retiring numbers.
Certainly hall of famers should have them retired. After that, guys with multiple (like 7 or 8) Pro Bowls would be appropriate.

FIFTY6G-MAN
08-07-2012, 11:34 PM
What has brought this on. We haven't retired a number since Simms. It's not like they do it often. If they stick only to all time greats, it really won't be an issue for a very, very long time, at which point they can re-issue the numbers if they had to, starting with the numbers that have been retired the longest. At that point there will be no one around that saw those players play anyway. At this point, #92 is the only one up for depate right now. #10 will be next.Retired MEANS retired! Do You not understand the words coming out of his keyboard?

FIFTY6G-MAN
08-07-2012, 11:38 PM
Retiring to many numbers of great players is a good problem to have; Break out the triple digits!!!!!!!!!!!!We can start with making rookies wear letters until they have proven themsleves.I agree! Lets start rookies wearing letters until they actually earn a number!!

Toadofsteel
08-08-2012, 01:25 AM
This is why most NFL teams do a ring of honor-style thing nowadays... your average NFL roster is much bigger than other sports (only baseball expanded rosters come close).

MikeyMike01
08-08-2012, 08:30 AM
I've got the perfect solution: Fractions!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Futurama_ep48.jpg

SweetZombieJesus
08-08-2012, 03:27 PM
That also requires this logo change:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6656/newnewyorkgiants.jpg

YATittle1962
08-08-2012, 06:20 PM
out of 99 numbers.....is 11 really too many ?

that leaves 88 numbers for 53 guys

QB, P, K
1-19

RB, DB
20-49

C
50-59
60-79
G, T
60-79

WR
80-89
10-19
TE
80-89

DL (NT/DT/DE)
60-79
90-99
LB
50-59
90-99

byron
08-08-2012, 06:32 PM
out of 99 numbers.....is 11 really too many ?

that leaves 88 numbers for 53 guys

QB, P, K
1-19

RB, DB
20-49

C
50-59
60-79
G, T
60-79

WR
80-89
10-19
TE
80-89

DL (NT/DT/DE)
60-79
90-99
LB
50-59
90-99 thats only 11 in over 85 years roughly ....if the trend continues we would be down to say 55 numbers 255 years from from now I think we got some time to figure it out or slow the pace

nhpgiantsfan
08-08-2012, 09:09 PM
Retired MEANS retired! Do You not understand the words coming out of his keyboard?

You do realize at the current pace it would be a couple hundred years before we ran out of numbers and maybe had to consider unretiring numbers. Nobody will even know whose number is being unretired at that point.

As a matter of fact wasn't #18 recently unretired in Denver for a certain QB. I could be wrong but I thought I heard that.

BROADWAYSTORM
08-08-2012, 11:33 PM
The problem is the Giants have retired numbers for players that maybe should not have been retired and then they did not retire players that should have when they realized they were issuing too many numbers to the rafters. For instance, 53 Carson and 70 Huff were all time great Giants who are both hall of fame middle linebackers. Even though 14 Y.A. Title had 3 ridiculous seasons as a Giant in the late 50's early 60's and set records I don't think he has enough of a legacy to have the number retired. Also Frank Gifford deserves to have his 16 retired over Tiki Barber's 21? Really? Regardless of whether you like Tiki or not he is the greatest offensive player in Giants history to this point. Not only that but when I see film of the 1950's Giants Kyle Rote 44 is the guy that stands out the most on offense. Phil Simms won a championship, so did Charlie Connerly. Should 11 and 42 be retired? I don't see it. Was Joe Morrison worthy of having 40 retired, I don't think so but he was an incredible player no doubt. Why isn't Rosie Brown's 79 retired? He is a hall of fame left tackle. I can't speak for Strong 50, Blozis 32, Flaherty 1 (actually this guy was the first player in all of pro sports to have a number retired), Leemans 4, Hein 7 (Totally should be retired) because I have not seen enough of them to give an opinion. And 56 of course should be retired. But how about Emlen Tunnels number? He is only the greatest Giants defensive back EVER, why isn't he retired? Or how about Robustelli? There have been so many great Giants that not to take anything from any of them but to me you have to be a hall of fame caliber player to have your number retired and have been outstanding AS A GIANT most if not all of your career. So maybe I am harsh but I see some players with retired numbers that should not have been retired and players who totally should have. BTW Michael Strahan is a Hall of fame caliber DE second greatest defensive player in Giants history and 92 should most definitely be retired. There were some great Giants that I saw and didn't see that are borderline number retire-able like 58 Carl Banks and the incomparable and unbelievable *** kicking machine that was 98 Jessie Armstead. Man the Giants have had in retrospect some of the best linebackers in NFL history. This without counting guys that signed with the Giants later in their careers that were also great backers, like Antonio Pierce or Mike Barrow. I hope Herzlich and/or Jacq Williams can join them.

Rat_bastich
08-09-2012, 12:50 AM
We can always use barcodes and have refs use barcode readers when someone commits a penalty.....

giants8493
08-09-2012, 01:03 AM
You do realize at the current pace it would be a couple hundred years before we ran out of numbers and maybe had to consider unretiring numbers. Nobody will even know whose number is being unretired at that point.

As a matter of fact wasn't #18 recently unretired in Denver for a certain QB. I could be wrong but I thought I heard that.Thats a problem if we don't even know who's number we are un retiring. THey probably should not have been retired in the first place.

And yes I know it won't matter for a few hundred years but that's just avoiding the inevitable.

giants8493
08-09-2012, 01:05 AM
out of 99 numbers.....is 11 really too many ?

that leaves 88 numbers for 53 guys

QB, P, K
1-19

RB, DB
20-49

C
50-59
60-79
G, T
60-79

WR
80-89
10-19
TE
80-89

DL (NT/DT/DE)
60-79
90-99
LB
50-59
90-99Yeah but some players are going to have slim pickings when they are getting a number. some people get crazy attached to a number and they won't be happy

SweetZombieJesus
08-09-2012, 07:13 AM
The problem is the Giants have retired numbers for players that maybe should not have been retired and then they did not retire players that should have when they realized they were issuing too many numbers to the rafters. For instance, 53 Carson and 70 Huff were all time great Giants who are both hall of fame middle linebackers. Even though 14 Y.A. Title had 3 ridiculous seasons as a Giant in the late 50's early 60's and set records I don't think he has enough of a legacy to have the number retired. Also Frank Gifford deserves to have his 16 retired over Tiki Barber's 21? Really?

I'd have to look at the list of retired names but sometimes you get "mercy" retirements, like Al Blozis who played for 3 years and then died in service in WWII. Not to take anything away from him but does a tackle earn his number retired after 3 years? Pretty sure if I went over the Yankees retired numbers I'd find something similar.

And as for Gifford, the man was a phenomenon back in the day, a superstar. He was the first RB used to catch passes and was probably THE star player of his era.

SweetZombieJesus
08-09-2012, 07:16 AM
You do realize at the current pace it would be a couple hundred years before we ran out of numbers and maybe had to consider unretiring numbers. Nobody will even know whose number is being unretired at that point.

As a matter of fact wasn't #18 recently unretired in Denver for a certain QB. I could be wrong but I thought I heard that.

BLASPHEMY! Ruth, Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, all names that shall echo in the sport forever.

The Yankees do a great job of honoring those guys, the Giants have been too conservative and letting their own storied past get forgotten. They're putting more effort into it with the new stadium, but keep it up. All Giants fans should know about Ray Flaherty and Mel Hein and Sam Huff and Frank Gifford and LT and Phil Simms. We've got this great, rich past that gets neglected.

fansince69
08-09-2012, 07:33 AM
I'd have to look at the list of retired names but sometimes you get "mercy" retirements, like Al Blozis who played for 3 years and then died in service in WWII. Not to take anything away from him but does a tackle earn his number retired after 3 years? Pretty sure if I went over the Yankees retired numbers I'd find something similar.

And as for Gifford, the man was a phenomenon back in the day, a superstar. He was the first RB used to catch passes and was probably THE star player of his era.

The only one on the Yankee list that might fall in that category is Billy Martin who was retired after he died......good ball player not great....couple good years as a manager but hardly in the category of all time Yankee greats....Just very special to Yankee fans.....Mattingly whose career was cut short because of his back injury....his numbers were amazing for a 5 year span ...but his overall career numbers are not hall of fame worthy but was probably one of the most loved Yankees ever (including my personal favorite)

I guess what I am saying is it really depends on the criteria of what it takes to get your number retired