Is this pet peeve exclusive to me?

[Chicocheese]

I was watching a video on the Packers' recent training camp progress. I noticed Aaron Rodgers speaking very highly of a WR who was a QB in college (DeAndre...something.) It showed a few clips of him and I noticed that he is wearing #19.

Is it just me, or does seeing a WR in a # that is not in the 80's just irk you? It bugs the HECK outta me!

I know that Randall Cobb wears #18 because 1) It has to do with his sister, and 2) There were no #'s in the 80's available to him last year...but what about this new guy? Donald Lee is gone, so I believe we have #86 available. The Packers are all about tradition and I noticed that out of all the other teams in the league, they are one of the two or three out there that still show a vast majority of their WRs in 80's numbers.

Also, I don't know why the sudden urge to have receivers in the teen numbers came about? Like, seriously. You don't see QB's with numbers in the 70's, or RBs with numbers in the 90's. What gives? I understand that at the end of the day the number on a player's jersey doesn't help or hinder a guy from catching the ball, but what about tradition?

/endrant

 

[GreenBlood]

I was watching a video on the Packers' recent training camp progress. I noticed Aaron Rodgers speaking very highly of a WR who was a QB in college (DeAndre...something.) It showed a few clips of him and I noticed that he is wearing #19.

Is it just me, or does seeing a WR in a # that is not in the 80's just irk you? It bugs the HECK outta me!

I know that Randall Cobb wears #18 because 1) It has to do with his sister, and 2) There were no #'s in the 80's available to him last year...but what about this new guy? Donald Lee is gone, so I believe we have #86 available. The Packers are all about tradition and I noticed that out of all the other teams in the league, they are one of the two or three out there that still show a vast majority of their WRs in 80's numbers.

Also, I don't know why the sudden urge to have receivers in the teen numbers came about? Like, seriously. You don't see QB's with numbers in the 70's, or RBs with numbers in the 90's. What gives? I understand that at the end of the day the number on a player's jersey doesn't help or hinder a guy from catching the ball, but what about tradition?

/endrant

Since 2004 the NFL allows WRs to wear jerseys from 10-19 and 80-89. Prior to that they could do it too, but they had to pay a weekly fine. It was changed because it made it hard to retire WR's numbers because it could easily cause a shortage in the future. That's when they also started letting TEs wear numbers from 40-49, which is much less common to see.

No, my pet peeve is smokers who think they have a license to litter by throwing their nasty butts all over the ground.

 

[DoddPower]

It's not something that bothers me at all. If anything, it's somewhat unique, and kind of cool. For example, Cobb has his reasons, but he's also a special teams ace, so his number is a little different. Besides, someone like DeAndre or whatever isn't going to make this team anyway, so I don't think it really matters. The non-traditional numbers, some players feel, may give them an opportunity to make the number mean something. Traditional numbers like 85, 88, etc. already are traditional renown numbers. I mean, how many great #18's are there at the WR position?

I guess for me, I have a lot of other pet peeves to worry about. This just isn't one of them. Whatever number makes the players/team happy. But then again, I'm not a very "traditional" type of guy.

 

[DoddPower]

No, my pet peeve is smokers who think they have a license to litter by throwing their nasty butts all over the ground.

Or what about people that throw their gum on the ground, which often subsequently gets eaten by birds and can easily kill them. Not a pet peeve of mine, necessarily, but your comment made me think of it.

 

[Jordyruns]

Donald Lee is gone, so I believe we have #86 available. /endrant

I beleive Gurley is number 86, I could be wrong though.

To answer your question no, I have gotten use to it. I actually like it when used in moderation, if every reciever is in the teens it bothers me but only a couple I'm fine with. LBs can be in the 90s as well, Walden and So'oto both have numbers in the 90s. If there was onr that woul dbother me it would be Shaky Smithson who is number 9.

 

[GreenBlood]

Or what about people that throw their gum on the ground, which often subsequently gets eaten by birds and can easily kill them. Not a pet peeve of mine, necessarily, but your comment made me think of it.

Yeah, that too, but mainly because of stepping on it on a hot day If there's no trash can around, I just swallow gum when I'm done with it.

 

[TJV]

Not only is it not a pet peeve of mine, it's necessary to avoid a confusing duplication of numbers as much as possible. All the 80s are in use (#86 = Tori Gurley). BTW, #19 is Diondre Borel and while he may not make the team, he (along with Gurley) was given a raise last year to stay on the Packers' PS because another team wanted to sign him to their active roster. I've read Gurley and Borel both ended up being paid as if they were active roster players. Some Packers fans may not know who Borel is, but the Packers' front office and coaching staffs are very aware of him. Other WRs without numbers in the 80's: 7- Gilleyien, 11- Boykin, 13- Moss, 16- Smithson, and of course Cobb. Having an "unusual" number for the position and having a locker in the auxiliary dressing room are usually an indication the player will struggle to make the roster, but such players have a much better chance in Green Bay than with almost any other team.

Currently the Packers have 4 numbers that are duplicated: 77: Muir and Datko; 69: Allard and Merling; 67: Barclay and Jones (Johnny); 54: Cook and Moses. The players with duplicate numbers play on opposites sides of the ball. Since numbers in the 80s are restricted to WRs and TEs, they avoid duplicates since they play the same side of the ball. (For example, in TC and preseason it's one thing to have DL Muir and OL Datko wear the same number, but far more confusing to have two receivers wear #86, for example. No offense Chicocheese, but you may want to consider switching to another (non-necessary) pet peeve.

 

[Poppa San]

I was watching a video on the Packers' recent training camp progress. I noticed Aaron Rodgers speaking very highly of a WR who was a QB in college (DeAndre...something.) It showed a few clips of him and I noticed that he is wearing #19.

Is it just me, or does seeing a WR in a # that is not in the 80's just irk you? It bugs the HECK outta me!

I know that Randall Cobb wears #18 because 1) It has to do with his sister, and 2) There were no #'s in the 80's available to him last year...but what about this new guy? Donald Lee is gone, so I believe we have #86 available. The Packers are all about tradition and I noticed that out of all the other teams in the league, they are one of the two or three out there that still show a vast majority of their WRs in 80's numbers.

Also, I don't know why the sudden urge to have receivers in the teen numbers came about? Like, seriously. You don't see QB's with numbers in the 70's, or RBs with numbers in the 90's. What gives? I understand that at the end of the day the number on a player's jersey doesn't help or hinder a guy from catching the ball, but what about tradition?

/endrant

The NFL does restrict numbers worn in certain positions which makes it difficult when you have a lot of players at one position during camp: (courtesy of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_number_(American_football))
<There is a chart in the link that I cannot get to copy here.>

 

[FrankRizzo]

I agree.
This isn't college anymore, WRs should be in the 80s.
Nobody has more than 10 WR+TEs on a roster.

 

[Poppa San]

I agree.
This isn't college anymore, WRs should be in the 80s.
Nobody has more than 10 WR+TEs on a roster.

retired numbers and in season injury replacements could exceed 10 real easily.

 

[DevilDon]

You folks can be no fun at all. I thought this was an opportunity to rant about our real pet peeves. How about when you are standing in a checkout in a big line, another checkout opens up and the person on the end of the line.... yes the one who just got there, shoots into the new open lane.
You know, some of us may have the time to spend in line but then again, some of us may have lives too.

 

[ivo610]

You folks can be no fun at all. I thought this was an opportunity to rant about our real pet peeves. How about when you are standing in a checkout in a big line, another checkout opens up and the person on the end of the line.... yes the one who just got there, shoots into the new open lane.
You know, some of us may have the time to spend in line but then again, some of us may have lives too.

I like when someone uses a check to pay. Possibly the slowest form of payment in the 21st century

 

[Kitten]

I wouldn't say it's something that would bother me but it's certainly something I would take notice of and be curious of its significance.

 

[60six]

Pet peeves you say.......when in line someone in front of you buys a bunch of items with one $20 bill and then has another pile of items and pays with different money from the other pocket, then buys Lotto tickets the same way with the leftover money from each.

 

[DevilDon]

I like when someone uses a check to pay. Possibly the slowest form of payment in the 21st century

Is that your pet LIKE Ivo? Mine is those little scanner cards you have to have to get the sale prices. I actually play games with them. I had a checkout threaten to call the police because I was using their competitors card.
Last week I waited in line more than 5 minutes while the clerk tried to find someone's "piggy points" account. I would have offered them the $.20 cents they would have gained over the store card but I was so interested in how long they'd try to find their account through phone numbers and names. Seriously thrilling.
I also once signed up for a card as Vincent Lombardi with the address of P.O. box 10628 and they lady told me the card could be mailed within the week. I told her I needed the savings today and she said "You can wait until you get the card and shop again Mr. Lombardi".
I came back a week later and I put a whole cart of groceries through the scanner and asked for a store card. The checker said they didn't have one so I told them to put the groceries back, I didn't want them if not at the sale price. The store manager had to come by and ask why I didn't want to enjoy the benefits of their card.
Needless to say I got the sale prices. They play their games I play mine. You'd have thought I nuked their store.

 

[Darth Garfunkel]

players numbers don't matter to me one way or the other.
But many other things bother me since I am a grumpy old man.

people who walk 3 across on the sidewalk and won't bother to change formation for anyone else.

double lane changers or people who realize they are about to miss their exit so they slow way way down to try to get over. Just go around the f@#$ing block!

People who don't quite know where they are going so they just stop and look around, blocking car or pedestrian traffic while they figure it out.

when parking on the street, people who don't pull all the way up to car in front of them and end up using a space and a half.

as a bicycle commuter I can't stand when people won't give you even an extra foot of room when passing you, cell phone drivers and people who try to beat you to an intersection and then turn right in front of you. Yes, I've been hit...

and as a driver, bicycle dorks who decide they are entitled to an entire lane as they ride along leisurely not even attempting to make way for or keep up with traffic.

people who yap on their phones the whole time they are shopping. Usually they aren't really saying anything anyway.

Teenagers.

The Vikings.

 

[weeds]

Lance Alworth wore #19.

 

[60six]

Don Maynard #13 or how about Bilenickoff #25

 

[GreenBlood]

I agree.
This isn't college anymore, WRs should be in the 80s.

Why?

Nobody has more than 10 WR+TEs on a roster.

What if you retire a number and you lose a WR and a TE on IR? Suddenly you're limited to a total of 7 WR/TE.

You're right about it not being college. It's the NFL. And per the rules, they are allowed to wear numbers in the teens. Not sure what the problem is here.

 

[Pat4DaPack]

It doesnt bother me but it is something that I usually notice.

 

[ivo610]

I believe we retired #14 for some guy that played WR

 

[FrankRizzo]

FrankRizzo said: ↑

I agree.
This isn't college anymore, WRs should be in the 80s.​

Why?

Well let me ask you this, aside from it being a rule, why are QBs required to be #1-#19?
Why are OL required to be in the 60's or 70's?
Why are LBers required to be in the 50's? Why was AJ Hawk (and Clay) not allowed to wear their college # of 47, here in the NFL?

The same thing, naturally, makes sense for WR's, in some people's opinions. That's why.

Jerry Rice, James Lofton, John Jefferson, Sterling Sharpe, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Michael Irvin, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth.... I can only think of the old Raiders with Freddy Bilitnekoff who bucked that trend.

 

[GreenBlood]

FrankRizzo said: ↑

I agree.​

This isn't college anymore, WRs should be in the 80s.​

Well let me ask you this, aside from it being a rule, why are QBs required to be #1-#19?
Why are OL required to be in the 60's or 70's?
Why are LBers required to be in the 50's? Why was AJ Hawk (and Clay) not allowed to wear their college # of 47, here in the NFL?

Aside from it being a rule? Why does that matter? It's simply because that's what NFL rules dictate. Probably has something to do with officiating. BTW, LBs can wear numbers in the 90s too.

Do you know what NFL rules dicate for WRs?

What sense does it make to allow 19 possible numbers for a position (QB) that has only 2 or 3 players and only allow 10 possible numbers for two positions (TE,WR) that can possibly add up to as many as 9 players? It doesn't leave room to retire anyone's number and causes problems if 2 or 3 of those guys go on IR. That's precisely why the NFL changed it in 2004. Maybe you can start a petition or something if you want it changed back.

 

[Chicocheese]

Well, I never intended this thread to be about other pet peeves...I was thinking more along the line of football-related pet peeves, as this is a football forum. I thought that kinda goes with out saying but...I guess not.

 

[DevilDon]

Well, I never intended this thread to be about other pet peeves...I was thinking more along the line of football-related pet peeves, as this is a football forum. I thought that kinda goes with out saying but...I guess not.

Huh, I don't think it goes without saying at all. Many things are discussed here. It's a forum, an exchange. I don't have a pet peeve with the NFL right off but let me get back to you.