Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

I haaaate this rule.

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.

Posted
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
Posted

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.

Posted (edited)
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
Posted


 

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.

Posted
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)

Posted
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.

Posted
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

Posted
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.

×
×
  • Create New...