wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
5 years ago

Bullshit. Retiring of numbers is stupid. 53 players, plus 10 practice squad. Only get 99 numbers as it is.

I would rather see the number removed from circulation for 10-15 years. I came to this belief after Dale Earnhardt Sr passed away. I hated the idea of seeing #3 racing around the track. And then when it came back, when that #3 was on the track, it brought up more and more stories and memories about Dale and I went, wow, if the number carriers on, so do the memories. Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind.

DO NOT RETIRE NUMBERS!

And Charles Woodson does not deserve his number retired, neither did Reggie White.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



What's the crime if the NFL authorized 100's too?
There are plenty of numbers available. 900 more to be exact.

If they can fit Hoomanawanui or Houshmandzadeh across the shoulders they can fit 125 on the back and chest.

Let teams build tradition and retire as many damn numbers as they want.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
5 years ago

What's the crime if the NFL authorized 100's too?
There are plenty of numbers available. 900 more to be exact.

If they can fit Hoomanawanui or Houshmandzadeh across the shoulders they can fit 125 on the back and chest.

Let teams build tradition and retire as many damn numbers as they want.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Acceptable option if you ask me.
UserPostedImage
gbguy20
5 years ago

Without question he was and I also credit his teaching of Nick Collins which helped Collins become the player he was.



As for Charles Woodson. I do not think his time as a Packers player merits a number retirement. I also don't think any number should be retired. I watched Charles in college, liked him then and was jumping for joy when Packers signed him. He's one of my favorite players. Hell, I love Barry Sanders and I don't think his number should be retired.




As for Reggie White. My issue is the retiring of his number was more because of what he did as an Eagle AND Packers player, not for what he did as a Packers player. Maybe he didn't deserve it is too strong. I wouldn't have been upset if his number was removed from circulation for 10-15 years. How many times are we going to see the #92 in Green and Gold and have old highlight clips of him? And for what? Why? Why remove his number permanently?



I like numbers being up in the rafters/whatever in the ring of honor to honor them, but keep the number out of circulation only temporarily.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I like your opinion on not retiring numbers. But my opinion is if they're going to continue to do it, Woodson is just as deserving as some of the other guys up there.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Zero2Cool
5 years ago

I like your opinion on not retiring numbers. But my opinion is if they're going to continue to do it, Woodson is just as deserving as some of the other guys up there.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 



If they mistakenly continue to retire numbers, and they do or do not retire Woodson, it will not upset me either way.
UserPostedImage
sschind
5 years ago

Bullshit. Retiring of numbers is stupid. 53 players, plus 10 practice squad. Only get 99 numbers as it is.

I would rather see the number removed from circulation for 10-15 years. I came to this belief after Dale Earnhardt Sr passed away. I hated the idea of seeing #3 racing around the track. And then when it came back, when that #3 was on the track, it brought up more and more stories and memories about Dale and I went, wow, if the number carriers on, so do the memories. Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind.

DO NOT RETIRE NUMBERS!

And Charles Woodson does not deserve his number retired, neither did Reggie White.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



What started as a short post has evolved into something very controversial so I'll warn you in advance. I'm just killing time before I need to be doing something very important and things just got away from me.


I disagree on the retiring numbers thing. I understand what you are saying and that's why it needs to be reserved for someone truly special. If they run out of numbers maybe they can put an asterisk after the new ones.

I agree with you on Woodson. He was a great player but I just don't think he stands heads an shoulders above several other Packer DBs who probably did as much and meant as much to the Packers.

I mostly disagree with you on Reggie White. I get the reluctance because of his split career but His coming here along with Favre rejuvenated the Packers. Yes they had help but its those two who the vast majority of people think of when they think of the Packers of that era.

The Packers have retired 6 numbers Hutson, Canedeo, Starr, Nitschke, Favre and White.

Without question I'll agree with Hutson and Starr. Hutson was so far ahead of his peers at the time and Starr was the leader of the Lombardi Packers and it ddn't hurt that he was a great player as well. I don't know enough about Canedeo to say I agree without question but I wouldn't argue. Nitschke I feel falls into a similar category as Woodson. I'll agree with the nod because not only was he a great player he was who you thought of on defense at the time, much like Reggie White, which is where he sets himself apart from Woodson. Admittedly I was not around then so I don't know for sure but I do feel that even though they had many other great defensive players Nitschke was the central figure.

I already said I agree with White so that leaves Favre and IMO he belongs in the same category as Starr and Hutson. I won't go so far as to say that he was the reason for the Packer resurgence but given the exposure teams of his era had, compared to the 60's, with internet and cable and network TV and the like, I think and I have said this before, Favre is the most important Packer player of all time. Not because he was the best (I'd put Starr and Rodgers over him at QB) or because he won more championships (obviously Starr has him beat and hopefully Rodgers will soon) but because when you think of the shear numbers of people , Packer fans or otherwise, who knew him and loved him, or hated him because he wasn't on their team, the number of people he affected and the fans he brought to Green Bay I just think he is the player I think of when I think of the Packers.

I know I'll catch a lot of flack for saying that and by no means do I wish to diminish what many others have done. I don't necessarily think he had the biggest impact on the team winning games. I just feel that Favre's emergence along with his style and pretty much everything about him came along at the perfect time when the NFL was ready to explode. It was already big but when Favre came along it was like people were looking for one more reason to watch and he was it. Since I really began following the NFL in the late 70's early 80's I would say Favre, Jerry Rice, Lawrence Taylor, Walter Payton and Peyton Manning are probably the top 5 most important players to the NFL. It just so happened that when all those people fell in love with Favre they fell in love with the Packers as well. I'll throw Reggie into that mix as well and there are probably a few others who desrve consideration

I'm not going to try and convince anyone to agree with me. I have stated my reasons why I feel this way and you will all have your own very valid reasons to say it was someone else. I doubt you will convince me otherwise but feel free to try if you want but right now I have to go get ready for some football.
sschind
5 years ago

I like your opinion on not retiring numbers. But my opinion is if they're going to continue to do it, Woodson is just as deserving as some of the other guys up there.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 



Retired numbers and ring of honor are different things if that is what you mean by up there. I don't think Woodson compares to the 6 players who have had their numbers retired. With the ring of honor guys, yes.

beast
5 years ago

I would rather see the number removed from circulation for 10-15 years.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 


I agree, I rather see them remove the number for X-amount of years, than completely take it away.

That being said, I think it needs to be a larger number of years, as I'd worry that we'd see Owners like Jerry Jones (ones that want to be the center of attention) semi-retiring every single freaking star player... like Romo would get it, Ezekiel and Dak would get it too... and it's be more BS about Jones being a great draft mind, grabbing all these great players that got their numbers semi-retired...

Basically I'd worry about it becoming basically a 5 year Pro-Bowl contender nod, etc

I feel like it should be more like 25 to 50 years... a generation or two thing.

What's the crime if the NFL authorized 100's too?
There are plenty of numbers available. 900 more to be exact.

If they can fit Hoomanawanui or Houshmandzadeh across the shoulders they can fit 125 on the back and chest.

Let teams build tradition and retire as many damn numbers as they want.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



"if" is the key word here... and considering the NFL has been extremely reactive, and has failed many many times to be proactive, the NFL is very unlikely to randomly change... especially over something they've found so hard (and possibly stupidly) to keep certain positions in certain number ranges even.

But yes if they were to do that, if the actually pig (instead of pigskin) were to suddenly fly, that could change the context and positions on this subject, but based on what they have been doing the last 100 years...

As far as letting them retire as many numbers as they want... like I said, I don't it want it to feel like a joke, which the pro-bowl has become... and some glory-hound owners would surely make it.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
5 years ago
I think one of my hangups on this -- as I think more about it -- is a Packers number being retired for a player who wasn't synomously known for his days as a Packers player rubs me wrong. Packers Hall of Fame, yes. Packers Ring of Honor, yes. Retired number? No, but I don't want any number retired. I want the stories to continue for ever!!
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
5 years ago

I agree, I rather see them remove the number for X-amount of years, than completely take it away.

That being said, I think it needs to be a larger number of years, as I'd worry that we'd see Owners like Jerry Jones (ones that want to be the center of attention) semi-retiring every single freaking star player... like Romo would get it, Ezekiel and Dak would get it too... and it's be more BS about Jones being a great draft mind, grabbing all these great players that got their numbers semi-retired...

Basically I'd worry about it becoming basically a 5 year Pro-Bowl contender nod, etc

I feel like it should be more like 25 to 50 years... a generation or two thing.



"if" is the key word here... and considering the NFL has been extremely reactive, and has failed many many times to be proactive, the NFL is very unlikely to randomly change... especially over something they've found so hard (and possibly stupidly) to keep certain positions in certain number ranges even.

But yes if they were to do that, if the actually pig (instead of pigskin) were to suddenly fly, that could change the context and positions on this subject, but based on what they have been doing the last 100 years...

As far as letting them retire as many numbers as they want... like I said, I don't it want it to feel like a joke, which the pro-bowl has become... and some glory-hound owners would surely make it.

Originally Posted by: beast 



Boy we are a long way from switching jersey numbers.

Someone said the it's the same for all major sports. I remember a few years ago when St Louis traded for Jason Heyward. It was still spring training (maybe before spring training.) but he wanted # 22. The manager had it so you wouldn't think it was a big deal but they had to run it by the league and whoever made the jerseys. It took several weeks before it worked it's way through to approval.

beast- Don't look backwards over the past 100 years. There is no need to change today or in the next 5 years. Look forward to new owners. New circumstances. They may need to change in 20 or 30 years.

Yeah perhaps. But they own the team. I don't care if Jerry Jones retires 20 jerseys. It don't matter to me. If it panders to their fans and devalues the honor what do I care?

Who is to say how to determine who is "good enough" to have their number retired? If Kuhn was considered to be the heart and soul of the Packers for 15 years but as a FB never got many carries or receptions is it wrong to give him the honor? If the front office had a poll from the fans and he got a 90% approval rating to retire it, if he still had huge jersey sales numbers 10 years after retirement, why not?
UserPostedImage
gbguy20
5 years ago

Retired numbers and ring of honor are different things if that is what you mean by up there. I don't think Woodson compares to the 6 players who have had their numbers retired. With the ring of honor guys, yes.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Yep. You're right. This is what I was thinking.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (15h) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (20h) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (20h) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (20h) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (20h) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (22h) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (23-Jul) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (23-Jul) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (23-Jul) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

9h / Around The NFL / beast

19h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.