Jump to content

Number changes on the horizon with new rule proposal?


Recommended Posts

Just now, Boxcar said:

Why is this even being tabled? I don't understand why it matters, at all, other than for KC to get some much needed publicity.

Yeah. It's not necessarily about the numbers per se but the integrity of the "professional" side of football.

 

It's helped to identify personnel. Even in pre-season when I saw this, I thought it looked so elementary and so un- uniformed (if that's a word).

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I think players are required to purchase the existing inventory of jerseys with the number they want to abandon. That might have factored into the decision. I remember Adrian Peterson had this problem when he wanted to switch numbers back in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

Yeah. It's not necessarily about the numbers per se but the integrity of the "professional" side of football.

 

It's helped to identify personnel. Even in pre-season when I saw this, I thought it looked so elementary and so un- uniformed (if that's a word).

The vast majority of players already adhere to this framework regardless. Oh no, an OL wants to wear 49! I mean, I understand numbers as positional identifiers but the number ranges they've proposed are so vast, it's essentially meaningless.

 

E: I'm an idiot, I misread this entire thing. I didn't realize this is to lessen restrictions. I do not oppose this.

Edited by Boxcar
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

I am glad to see Diggs not switching.

 

I think this is a huge waste of proposal - I have not heard or seen on good reason for it.  It is not like they were running out of numbers.

 

It sounded like they had a guy that wanted a low number and was denied and so they are trying to get it. 
 

Honestly I would prefer to see them limit the numbers more based on position rather than freeing the numbers up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boxcar said:

The vast majority of players already adhere to this framework regardless. Oh no, an OL wants to wear 49! I mean, I understand numbers as positional identifiers but the number ranges they've proposed are so vast, it's essentially meaningless.

 

E: I'm an idiot, I misread this entire thing. I didn't realize this is to lessen restrictions. I do not oppose this.

Basically,

 

they want more players to be able to wear single digits and teens, (CBs, TEs, WR, DB, RB, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, warrior9 said:

Basically,

 

they want more players to be able to wear single digits and teens, (CBs, TEs, WR, DB, RB, etc)

Yeah I got that now. Players switch positions so often that they often have to abandon their old number because it isn't allowed. I don't think it would bother me to see a LB with a single digit number but it might just be something to get used to. I'm normally for more player freedom, and I don't really see the harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Canadian Bills Fan said:

Who cares about jersey numbers?

 

Dont try and fix something that isnt broken

what are they trying to fix? They just want to be able to pick a different number. I think I can tell who the LT is even if he's wearing number 22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The single digit #s are highly coveted in college

Right, but this isn't college. I think this just makes the NFL look elementary.

 

That's just my opinion, though. I'm sure people don't mind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...