Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Now if someone can explain to me roles of the Giants defensive lineman this year - all they list in the lineups/depth charts is DL - UGH!

TodMaher wrote:Now if someone can explain to me roles of the Giants defensive lineman this year - all they list in the lineups/depth charts is DL - UGH!

Harrison is def. the nose. Both 94 and 95 started game as 3-techs (DTs) but I'd say 94 is their DT and 95 is their DE... they are like Tenny or LA or even Hou they don't have two DEs in their 3-4 defenses, a one gap 3-4 with one DT (3-tech) and one DE (5-tech)

I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

sheajets wrote:I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

I actually prefer wide receiver numbers between 10 and 19 as opposed to the 80s. It is all personal preference. I generally like bigger numbers on bigger players. I wish defensive linemen could wear numbers in the 80s. To my eyes, Alan Page looked better in 88 than did Michael Irvin.

Now that Terrelle Pryor settled on #16 and Andre Roberts chose #19 (both wore single digit numerals in the preseason) the Jets currently only have one wide receiver with a number in the 80s (Quincy Enunwa).

JWL wrote:

sheajets wrote:I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

I actually prefer wide receiver numbers between 10 and 19 as opposed to the 80s. It is all personal preference. I generally like bigger numbers on bigger players. I wish defensive linemen could wear numbers in the 80s. To my eyes, Alan Page looked better in 88 than did Michael Irvin.

Now that Terrelle Pryor settled on #16 and Andre Roberts chose #19 (both wore single digit numerals in the preseason) the Jets currently only have one wide receiver with a number in the 80s (Quincy Enunwa).

The Bills have 6 WR's. None of them have numbers in the 80's. That's even with Josh Allen wearing #17 and Jim Kelly's #12 being retired.

sheajets wrote:I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

But... but... Don Maynard!

JWL wrote: I actually prefer wide receiver numbers between 10 and 19 as opposed to the 80s. It is all personal preference. I generally like bigger numbers on bigger players. I wish defensive linemen could wear numbers in the 80s. To my eyes, Alan Page looked better in 88 than did Michael Irvin.

I also prefer defensive linemen with the 80s (Page, Carl Eller, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Julius Adams, Sherman White, Vern Den Herder, Cedrick Hardman, Herb Orvis, Coy Bacon in 1978), I wish there had been more in the late 70s-early 80s.

JuggernautJ wrote:

sheajets wrote:I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

But... but... Don Maynard!

And then there was Kathie Lee's husband, and Lance Something or Other.

JuggernautJ wrote:

sheajets wrote:I personally never warmed up to the revival of wide receivers wearing numbers in the teens. I'd rather they be exclusively in the 80's and if a need arises to deviate from that, single digits or 20's. Teens to me are imprinted as QB/K/P numbers

But... but... Don Maynard!

Well when I see it in that era it looks fine.

Maynard is such an oddity with how minimalist he was as a player. Single bar no chinstrap. The smallest and lightest equipment. No gloves. About as streamlined as possible

How about

Qbs— 1-21
RBs— 20-49
TEs—80-89
C—50-69
G—60-69
T—70-79
WR—13-19, 40-49, 80-89
DE—60-99
DT—60-79, 90-99
MLB—50-64
OLB—50-69
CB—20-49
K-1-19, 80-89