Retired Numbers

[oldecapecod11]

Posted in the indicated thread is the following but there must be other "gripes" about "Retired Numbers" or the lack thereof?
Maybe it would be fun to talk about them?

"Three Studs on the O-Line" article
by oldecapecod 11 » Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:20 am
While working on a little project, I had reason to glance at both "Browns" web sites.
Something just LEAPED from the page and SMACK! But... it was something that was MISSING!
Guess what?
Neither the Baltimore "Browns" nor the "Imitation" Browns have retired a number to honor Marion Motley.
The crumbling Browns of the Cuyahoga have #76 retired for "The Toe" but nary a digit for Motley.
Though NOT a Browns' fan for more reasons than the shabby way they always treated my bloved Giants,
I still found this very disappointing.
I mean: Great is Great - no matter what!

[Reaser]

Retired numbers went off the rails long ago.

In my opinion there should be way less numbers retired. If you're going to retire a number it needs to be not just for a great player but for players that were/are the greatest of the great.

Plus you have the "Ring of Honor", which works for honoring players without having to retire numbers. Also works in that players who were more popular locally get recognized and you don't have to retire their number.

Either way, retired numbers have become almost a gimmick, retire a number for attention, hype, to sell it. Plus there's no integrity or honor to the past anyways. Numbers just magically get unretired, so why retire them in the first place? #18 in Denver, #80 in Seattle, etc ...

Then you have odd things like Warren Moon having his number retired by Tennessee (when he played in Houston), only two years after K Gary Anderson was wearing #1 for the Titans. If the 'franchise' was so eager to retire Moon's number then why were they handing it out to kickers?

Then there's the not retired but not handed out numbers, which have the same issues. Such as 'no one' wearing #19 for the Ravens out of respect for Johnny U ... except Scott Mitchell wore #19 for the Ravens.

Then there's all the players who wore #51 for the Bears after Butkus then it finally gets retired for him, but other players already had worn it.

... a lot of other ridiculous things, especially with teams that have moved.

[Gary Najman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the Detroit Lions had retired Hall of Fame TE Charlie Sanders #88, but when they drafted all-time bust Mike Williams they assigned him that number.

And interestingly, #20 of Lem Barney, Billy Sims and Barry Sanders wasn't retired...

[Reaser]

They retired #20.

I think the messed up thing with the Lions numbers is #85 ...

[Gary Najman]

Thanks for the correction, Reaser.

One trivia that was asked to me by one longtime friend is: what was the last Seahawks player who wore #12 (he knew that they had retired that number for the fans). I answered (hoping that I'm right) that there was only one player in Seattle history who wore #12, quarterback Sam Adkins, who each season was thought to be the backup to Jim Zorn, only to have been outplayed by Steve Myer and Dave Krieg.

[oldecapecod11]

I'll buy the Ring oh Honor theory and it would not bother me if ALL "Retired Numbers" were converted to such -
especially when there is no sanctity to the thing. Then there could be some uniformity throughout the league.
If you simply Stop! rather than convert, you have the foolishness that already exists and will continue to exist.
Guys will come along that are better than those with retired numbers. How do you honor them?
There are already some really ridiculous cases out there: Doug Atkins in New Orleans but not Chicago; Peyton in Indy
and he is still playing. Two #14s in New York. And it's worse in Baseball...
The point here (this thread) is how ridiculous it is excluding Marion Motley from ANY group of honorees in the city
where he helped build the franchise?
Dumb!

[ChrisBabcock]

Jim Taylor's # retired by the Saints and not the Packers is also kind of weird.

[rhickok1109]

It's worth noting that the NFL actively discourages teams from retiring numbers.

[oldecapecod11]

Indeed, it does, Ralph.
Didn't they actually launch a brief campaign against it about ten years ago?

[MatthewToy]

I get the Steelers reissuing 82 and 88 so often due to a lack of numbers for WRs and TEs. But they repeatedly issued 47 to a bunch of stiffs through 2006.