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
beast (12h) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (12h) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (17h) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (17h) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (18h) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (18h) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (18h) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (18h) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (22h) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (22h) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

22h / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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