bulldog Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 now that players can choose to wear low numbers as receivers and tight ends, the argument that retiring a few numbers of HOFers leaves the team without enough to field a team is a little less compelling the fact is the Redskins don't give out #42 (Taylor) or #81 anyway, so why not just go ahead and retire them? do you really think any quarterback is going to actually wear #9 here? not that Shane Matthews didn't try :laugh: I agree that we should wait until a player's era is over to truly judge his worth over time. We should not retire a jersey until say 5-10 years after his retirement. Some uniform numbers I would give up: #68 (Russ Grimm) should not be worn as it is now. #27 (Ken Houston) should not be worn as it has been several times since KH retired from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docsandy Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 I think that we should retire most of the numbers that have been previously mentioned. Along with retired numbers, I think FedEx should have Championship Banners. I haven't been to FedEx since it opened, so for those who go on a regular basis, does FedEx have the Super Bowl Banners? They have the championship flags the fly above the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcb26 Posted December 28, 2005 Share Posted December 28, 2005 HELLO!! SKINS FANS!! #17 SHOULD BE RETIRED..I understand that J. Campbell "asked" for permission..but John "freakin'" Freisz are you kidding me? Super Bowl XXII was the most impressive IMO of all SB victories! The 2nd quarter was epic! I can't be only one who feels this way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 let the kid wear #17. Doug Williams thinks Campbell is going to be a bona fide star in the NFL, that's why he told him to go ahead and wear the number............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselKev44 Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 #17 SHOULD BE RETIRED..I understand that J. Campbell "asked" for permission..but John "freakin'" Freisz are you kidding me? Super Bowl XXII was the most impressive IMO of all SB victories! The 2nd quarter was epic! I have the highest regard for Doug Williams and that SB XXII 2nd quarter is one of the highlist of my 28 years as a Skins fan, but I respectfully disagree. Williams wasn't a Redskin long enough, and he didn't even start much of that season. He led the Skins through the playoffs and to Super Bowl glory, but that doesn't warrant a retired jersey...especially when more deserving Redskins' numbers are not officially retired (9, 7, 44, 81, 28, etc...). All that being said, I love Doug Williams. He was, and is, a stud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 Being a "great" player isn't enough for me to have a number retired. I support the Redskins in not retiring every number of a "great" player from any given era. If you're going to retire a number, it should be for a player who was extra ordinary. Art Monk, Sonny Jurgensen and certainly John Riggins don't qualify. Sammy Baugh made the Washington Redskins. His coming to Washington at the same time the team did, established the franchise here in the Nation's Capital. Sammy Baugh also revolutionized the position of quarterback and was the driving force of this franchise for over a decade and a half. The only player who's number deserves consideration of retirement since Sammy Baugh would be Darrell Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncsuapex Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 After 10 minutes of google and my memory (in no way does this represent all great owners of #44...please add more if you can remember their names) NCAA Hoops David Thompson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselKev44 Posted December 29, 2005 Share Posted December 29, 2005 If you're going to retire a number, it should be for a player who was extra ordinary. Art Monk, Sonny Jurgensen and certainly John Riggins don't qualify. In general, I agree that retiring a number should be exceedingly rare and I have no problem with how the Skins handle the issue, but... Monk, Jurgensen and Riggins were not "extraordinary"? They were only three of the best EVER at their respective positions! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.