@DCGoldPants Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 7 Joe Theismann, QB, 1974–85 9 Sonny Jurgensen, QB, 1964–74 21 Sean Taylor, S, 2004–07 28 Darrell Green, CB, 1983–2002 42 Charley Taylor, WR, 1964–77 43 Larry Brown, RB, 1969–76 44 John Riggins, RB, 1976–79, 1981–85 49 Bobby Mitchell, RB, 1962–68 65 Dave Butz, DT, 1975–88 70 Sam Huff, LB, 1964-69 (worn by Leonard Marshall in 1994) 81 Art Monk, WR, 1980–93 Per the interwebs, this is the list of unofficial retired numbers by the Skins with Sammy Baugh's #33 formally retired. I'm not going to say every one of these numbers should be allowed for some player to wear in the future. But I was thinking how some pro and college teams have it figured out. You don't retire a specific number usually. You put their name with their number into your own Ring of Fame. What I would suggest is instead of unofficially retiring a number like the Redskins have been doing, is that they do only do that for a certain amount of time, say 10 years. Then after that if the number can be worn by another position, allow that. For example, numbers in the 20's, 30's and 40's can be RB's and DB's. Teen's can be QB's, Kickers and WR's. Honestly, I think the NFL is too strict with what number a player is wearing based on their position. As long as one guy is wearing that number at a time, it should be ok. Seeing our QB wear #33 back in the day would have been a thrill. Seeing a RB wear a single number like they did in college would be cool too. Long story short, as much as I love guys like Sean Taylor, Riggo, DG, Sonny, etc. Its just a number and there are ways you can honor a the legacy of a player without locking away a number forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Reparations Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I always enjoyed statues outside of stadiums to honor a player like outside of AT&T Park in SF and Jordan in Chicago. I am not sure if anyone other than Joe Gibbs or JKC deserves it though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 I think 65 and 70 have been worn several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gart Monk Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Those numbers should be available with the possible exception of #33. Baugh is in a class by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Levi Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Those numbers should be available with the possible exception of #33. Baugh is in a class by himself. No they shouldn't. Would be a crime to see a Redskin wearing 44 who wasn't Riggo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 As much as I hate using the Cowboys as an example, the way they handle 88 is a pretty good idea. If we ever get "the" safety again, I wouldn't mind him wearing 21 if the coaching staff expects him to have the same effect Taylor did, or 44 if he's a RB like Riggo (if we had drafted the Toby Gerhart, for example). That being said, if it's a different position, then I have a little less of a problem (21 going to a RB, or 44 a DB). I wouldn't mind seeing another 28, 81, or 7 out there either. Patrick Peterson could wear the 28, or AJ Green the 81, if we drafted them. I don't think it's going to happen, but it's an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Only 33 and 21 shouldn't be in use. And 21 should be in use in 2 years. That will be 5 years since ST died. Will anyone really confuse a player of today wearing #9 with a 75 year old Sonny Jergenson? Or a 50 some year old Riggins? Great that these players were great players from the past, but they have their place in the ROH. We have too many numbers out of circulation. You'll end up running out of numbers eventually. And several players have worn #3 including the douchebag Jeff George. Did it taint Mosely's career here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeen80 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I agree in that 33 should be the only officially retired number. True Redskins fans will know its the player, not the number that will be remembered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The only other numbers I'd consider retiring are 9 and 81 since Jurgensen and Monk not only made a tremendous impact on the field, but off the field with the franchise and in Washington as a whole. Edit: Mitchell's 49, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 To me there is only one number that deserves retiring along with 33 and that is 28 for Green. His record of games played will never be broken. All the other players were, except Taylor who is there only because he died, good for an extended period of time but they all will be passed at some point. I think every other number should be available to use. Having said that, it's going to be tough. People will scream and yell when it first happens and it's going to take a strong coach to stand up to that and Belt Buckle Danny and (if he's still around) Bruce "I like the old days" Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 What I would suggest is instead of unofficially retiring a number like the Redskins have been doing, is that they do only do that for a certain amount of time, say 10 years. Then after that if the number can be worn by another position, allow that. For example, numbers in the 20's, 30's and 40's can be RB's and DB's. Teen's can be QB's, Kickers and WR's. Honestly, I think the NFL is too strict with what number a player is wearing based on their position. As long as one guy is wearing that number at a time, it should be ok. Seeing our QB wear #33 back in the day would have been a thrill. Seeing a RB wear a single number like they did in college would be cool too. Long story short, as much as I love guys like Sean Taylor, Riggo, DG, Sonny, etc. Its just a number and there are ways you can honor a the legacy of a player without locking away a number forever. What I would suggest is we stick a feather in your cap and call it macaroni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Its just so hard to retire NFL nmbers. Since only certain positions can wear certain numbers, if you start retiring numbers, you'll run out of them. If we were to retire another number, I agree with scruffy, it should be 28. As much as I liked Sean Taylor, his number shouldn't be retired. If guys like Riggins, Green, Monk, Jacoby, etc. that are in the HoF don't have their numbers retired, 21 shouldn't be retired either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Only 33 and 21 shouldn't be in use. I completely and whole heartedly disagree. When the Redskins gave a rookie that had no chance of making the squad Bobby Mitchell's jersey a few years ago it turned my stomach. To see anybody on the field in a Burgundy and Gold # 81 today would be total blasphemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Could you imagine if we issued #65 to Albert Haynesworth? What a disgrace to Dave Butz, the anti-Albert, that would have been. Or if James Davis wore #44 this year? I think it's terrible that anyone can wear #66 after the great years Jacoby played with that number. Point is, issuing #'s of the all-time greats to the wrong player doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The problem with retiring numbers is that you could make a case for 100 Redskin numbers to be retired. Why Monk and not Clark? Why Riggins and not Terry Allen? I like the idea of retiring JERSEYS and displaying them around the stadium. That way, you're retiring "Riggins 44" not just "44". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The problem with retiring numbers is that you could make a case for 100 Redskin numbers to be retired. Why Monk and not Clark? Why Riggins and not Terry Allen?I like the idea of retiring JERSEYS and displaying them around the stadium. That way, you're retiring "Riggins 44" not just "44". I understand your point but Riggo is the team career rusher. Terry Allen is 5th. Monk had 888 catches. Gary Clark had 549. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 The problem with retiring numbers is that you could make a case for 100 Redskin numbers to be retired. Why Monk and not Clark? Why Riggins and not Terry Allen?I like the idea of retiring JERSEYS and displaying them around the stadium. That way, you're retiring "Riggins 44" not just "44". Exactly what I am saying. You do something to display a Jersey with the Name & Number and save retiring the number forever to very very special cases. To me that's only two players. Sammy Baugh and Darrell Green. The rest can be used elsewhere in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I completely and whole heartedly disagree. When the Redskins gave a rookie that had no chance of making the squad Bobby Mitchell's jersey a few years ago it turned my stomach. To see anybody on the field in a Burgundy and Gold # 81 today would be total blasphemy. Again why? Are these former players gods? I grew up in the golden era of 80's Redskins football. I love those players to death, but again, if a QB put on # 7 would it really turn your stomach if the new QB threw for 35 TDs? All these players are old, bald, gray haired or dead. Bobby Mitchell, Sonny, Charley Taylor- most of these guys haven't seen a field in over 40 years. They are in the Ring of Fame. ---------- Post added January-7th-2011 at 04:07 PM ---------- Exactly what I am saying. You do something to display a Jersey with the Name & Number and save retiring the number forever to very very special cases.To me that's only two players. Sammy Baugh and Darrell Green. The rest can be used elsewhere in my opinion. Exactly. I'd be on board for 33 and 28 only. Keep 21 out for 2 more year (5 years without use) and put it back in circulation. People forget, Riggins started out as a Jet. Sonny was an Eagle. Even though they were great players for us, it becomes a point where you run out of numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Again why? Are these former players gods? I grew up in the golden era of 80's Redskins football. I love those players to death, but again, if a QB put on # 7 would it really turn your stomach if the new QB threw for 35 TDs? All these players are old, bald, gray haired or dead. Bobby Mitchell, Sonny, Charley Taylor- most of these guys haven't seen a field in over 40 years. They are in the Ring of Fame.---------- Post added January-7th-2011 at 04:07 PM ---------- Exactly. I'd be on board for 33 and 28 only. Keep 21 out for 2 more year (5 years without use) and put it back in circulation. People forget, Riggins started out as a Jet. Sonny was an Eagle. Even though they were great players for us, it becomes a point where you run out of numbers. With 21 anyway, you could make an argument to just keep it away from the DB spot. Similar with 28, and 44 kept away from RBs, to be used with DBs. Seeing a RB wear those numbers would be weird, but I don't think it would cause too much of a stir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 With 21 anyway, you could make an argument to just keep it away from the DB spot. Similar with 28, and 44 kept away from RBs, to be used with DBs. Seeing a RB wear those numbers would be weird, but I don't think it would cause too much of a stir. 21 is no different than 36. It should be allowed to be issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 21 is no different than 36.It should be allowed to be issued. 36 is being issued, or am I missing your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 49 is not necessarily retired. There was a big to do when a player who was not even an all pro was given that number when Bobby Mitchell was working in the front office. Bobby Mitchell, obviously took it as an insult and rightfully so. I like respecting players and their accomplishments, but after a while it becomes whose number should be off limits and whose shouldn't? The Yankees are the only franchise that I can think of where this type of dilemma goes on because of the fact that they have so many retired, but after a while there won't be any numbers to use. Numbers should be given out in a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 36 is being issued, or am I missing your point? My point is they should issue 21 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 My point is they should issue 21 as well. You OK with any position, or just with a RB like I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 You OK with any position, or just with a RB like I said? Any position. Sean Taylor had a ton of potential. He is oversold on this site by the young people who have never had anything to cheer for from this franchise. He played one full season for us. 1. He had a ton of potential in a time frame where the Skins suck. Meanwhile there are no less than 20, 30??? Redskins more deserving of having their jersey retired over him...and that number may be low. But it's an unpopular opinion. Sad but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.