05-12-2018, 12:30 AM
With a new wave of rookies comes a new wave of numbers to remember. Through offseason workouts some wear single digits until camp, some wear currently taken and sometimes they'll wear a number so legendary it makes you feel nostalgic.
Look at photos of workouts lately and you'll see one number stick out like a sore thumb: 84.
Why isn't that number retired?
Before arguing for or against it, two thoughts conflict in my mind: First, how many retired numbers can a team have when they need to reduce 90 guys down to 53? Second, isn't it a little... i dont know... a little short sighted to retire numbers only to leave some major individuals hanging on a technicallity? 93 is another one that comes to mind.
Is there a better solution to honor these players without losing out on assignable numbers to current players?
What came to my mind was a redefinition of a retired number. Rather than removing it from the pool, assign it and embroider the name of the honored player as a patch somewhere on the jersey. Let 80 run around out there, lets see CRIS CARTER stitched on the sleeve or chest plate.
What Id like the most about something like this would be how front and center some of our legends would be in the minds of younger fans. I personally enjoy watching 93 suit up, i like 84 running around. To me, it doesnt feel like John Randle has been gone as long as Cris Carter has. And I think a part of it may just be the constant nostalgic reminder watching 93 compete as Kevin Williams or Shamar Stephen. Same with Randy and Patterson years back. 80 though? Cris Carter feels like a throwback to Fran Tarkenton sometimes. I feel like these guys have been obscured in a way in my mind; relegated to an ancient past.
What do ya think? Would embroidering the name of an honored player to their former number, once its reassigned to a new player, be a good idea? Terrible idea? More or less honorable?
Look at photos of workouts lately and you'll see one number stick out like a sore thumb: 84.
Why isn't that number retired?
Before arguing for or against it, two thoughts conflict in my mind: First, how many retired numbers can a team have when they need to reduce 90 guys down to 53? Second, isn't it a little... i dont know... a little short sighted to retire numbers only to leave some major individuals hanging on a technicallity? 93 is another one that comes to mind.
Is there a better solution to honor these players without losing out on assignable numbers to current players?
What came to my mind was a redefinition of a retired number. Rather than removing it from the pool, assign it and embroider the name of the honored player as a patch somewhere on the jersey. Let 80 run around out there, lets see CRIS CARTER stitched on the sleeve or chest plate.
What Id like the most about something like this would be how front and center some of our legends would be in the minds of younger fans. I personally enjoy watching 93 suit up, i like 84 running around. To me, it doesnt feel like John Randle has been gone as long as Cris Carter has. And I think a part of it may just be the constant nostalgic reminder watching 93 compete as Kevin Williams or Shamar Stephen. Same with Randy and Patterson years back. 80 though? Cris Carter feels like a throwback to Fran Tarkenton sometimes. I feel like these guys have been obscured in a way in my mind; relegated to an ancient past.
What do ya think? Would embroidering the name of an honored player to their former number, once its reassigned to a new player, be a good idea? Terrible idea? More or less honorable?
