+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Retired Numbers

  1. #1

    Unhappy 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. #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.

  3. #3
    Starter PBTimmons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Penn
    Posts
    347
    I believe they will start un-retiring numbers eventually. #56 will probably stay retired if they do, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by PBTimmons View Post
    This. Pugh is not happening. Not. Happening.

  4. #4
    Quote 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

  5. #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 at 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

  6. #6
    Quote 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.

  7. #7
    All-Pro Captain Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Emerald Isle, N.C.
    Posts
    9,059
    Retiring to many numbers of great players is a good problem to have; Break out the triple digits!!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. #8
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    16,757
    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.

  9. #9
    Veteran FIFTY6G-MAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ARMPIT OF U.S.
    Posts
    1,988
    Quote 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?

  10. #10
    Veteran FIFTY6G-MAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ARMPIT OF U.S.
    Posts
    1,988

    Cool

    Quote 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!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts