Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retired Numbers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Retired Numbers

    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?

  • #2
    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.
    #80

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe they will start un-retiring numbers eventually. #56 will probably stay retired if they do, though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by PBTimmons View Post
        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

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Last edited by SweetZombieJesus; 08-07-2012, 05:01 PM.
          8-Time NFL Champions - 1927 1934 1938 1956 1986 1990 2007 2011

          "You win close games because you're prepared to do it. It doesn't just come down to luck." -- Bill Parcells

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SweetZombieJesus View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Retiring to many numbers of great players is a good problem to have; Break out the triple digits!!!!!!!!!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                No one remembers who came in second.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nhpgiantsfan View Post
                  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?
                  "KILL'EM ALL AND LET THE PARAMEDICS SORT'EM OUT!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Chaos View Post
                    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!!
                    "KILL'EM ALL AND LET THE PARAMEDICS SORT'EM OUT!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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).

                      I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite team in the NFL.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've got the perfect solution: Fractions!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That also requires this logo change:

                          8-Time NFL Champions - 1927 1934 1938 1956 1986 1990 2007 2011

                          "You win close games because you're prepared to do it. It doesn't just come down to luck." -- Bill Parcells

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by YATittle1962 View Post
                              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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X