Skip to content

Some Thoughts on the Jets (Possibly) Un-retiring #12

Posted in:

A good Sunday morning, Uni Watchers. I hope everyone had a pleasant Saturday.

As the Aaron Rodgers to the Jets saga (hopefully) nears its conclusion, the question of what jersey number Rodgers will wear begins to loom larger.

As you’re probably all aware, throughout his entire NFL career, Aaron Rodgers has worn the #12 with the Green Bay Packers. But that was actually not the number he wanted to wear when he joined the team. Rodgers had worn #8 in his two seasons at Cal-Berkeley, but when he joined the Green Bay Packers, longtime kicker Ryan Longwell was wearing that number. Whether or not Rodgers tried to finagle the number from Longwell isn’t known, but the #12 — a classic quarterback number — was available, so he took that instead of #8.

Rodgers did not become a star player in his first season, which was 2005 — Brett Favre was the starting QB, and Rodgers would serve as Favre’s backup for three seasons. In his rookie year, Rodgers saw very limited action, finishing the season with a total of 65 passing yards, no TD’s and one INT. Following the 2005 season, Longwell, and his #8, signed with the Minnesota Vikings, but Rodgers elected to keep wearing #12. Following Favre’s departure from the Packers in 2007, Rodgers became the starting QB, and his legendary status wearing #12 began. It’s hard to picture him wearing any other number following his Hall of Fame career with the Pack.

Assuming the trade from Green Bay to the Jets is complete, Rodgers will face a bit of a quandary: His NFL number is #12, but that number is technically not available, due to it being retired for a certain former QB for New York. You may have heard of him.

That’s right. The Jets have retired #12 for one Joe Willie Namath.

So, with #12 ‘unavailable,’ Rodgers will just choose a new number, right? Not so fast, my friends.

Prior to this trade fully taking shape, Namath was asked about Rodgers possibly joining the Jets. Not only did Mr. Namath say he was on board with the trade, he’d even go so far as to give his blessing for Rodgers to wear #12 with the Jets, should he so desire.

To my knowledge, Rodgers hasn’t actually “asked” to wear #12 with his new team — in fact, as of this writing, Rodgers is still the property of the Packers, so Rodgers has apprently been keeping very close to the vest reticent to speak out publicly…at least in terms of his potential future number. You can bet that will change if once the trade becomes official.

Let’s assume now, for the sake of argument, Rodgers is traded.

Obviously, the New York Jets have retired #12 — so the first question arises is “can Joe Namath unretire his own number?” Simply because Namath has given Rodgers his blessing doesn’t mean the team will automatically make it available. That’s not to say they won’t (especially if it’s cool with Namath), but certainly the team wouldn’t unretire the number if Namath were opposed. Or at least, I suspect they wouldn’t.

Let’s assume again (which is a fun exercise, but not always wise) that since Namath has given his blessing, the Jets are copacetic with unretiring the number. Would Rodgers wear it? And even if those two conditions are met, should he?

The Jets aren’t running “short” on uniform numbers, unlike certain sports clubs, having retired only five numbers in their history. They certainly wouldn’t need to unretire any of them in order to accommodate any players.

But let’s also remember for whom #12 is currently retired: Joe. Willie. Namath. Both in the annals of NY Jets history and really, NFL history, Namath’s impact on the game is hard to measure. Yes, he was a very good, even great, quarterback, and a Hall of Famer to boot. But he’s also more than likely not on anyone’s Top 10 best QBs of all-time list. He had a couple really really good seasons, and of course was a Super Bowl Champion. Certainly worthy of having his number retired.

But Namath’s impact — while certainly felt on the field — was far greater than his individual numbers. Perhaps more than any other player, Joe Namath’s guarantee proved that the American Football League was not only on par with the (then still rival) NFL, they could beat an NFL team in the biggest game on the biggest stage. A merger between the AFL and NFL was in the works before Namath’s Jets scored perhaps the greatest upset in sports history, but his guarantee of a win was possibly the ballsiest boast ever backed up in the world. Namath said “we’ll win” and then he did it.

So, when we consider how important the number twelve is in this instance…not just to Rodgers or to the Jets…but in terms of its overall impact on the sport, we must also weigh this when considering whether the team should unretire #12.

Although I’m not a Jets fan, my pop was, and he was a huge Joe Namath fan. I was too young to have any memories of Super Bowl III, but my dad often regaled me with stories of that game, and the impact it had. He reminded me of Namath’s great accomplishment early and often in my salad days. The first professional football game I ever saw was on December 1, 1974, and of course it featured Namath as the winning QB.

To this day, if you attend a Jets game, the number of fans wearing Namath jerseys probably outnumbers any other player. Namath was, and to some still is, a football god. To many — and I might even put myself in this category — seeing #12 on any player but Namath would be sacrilege. Even with Namath’s blessing (and assuming Rodgers actually would want to wear #12 on the Jets), I’m not sure the Jets should unretire the number, even for a player with as strong a pedigree as Rodgers.

But wait, you say, Namath has given Rodgers his blessing to wear #12. What’s wrong with that?

As great as Rodgers is, let’s face it — he’s probably going to play for the Jets for a maximum of two seasons. Would that be worth it for someone to wear a number that Namath made iconic for the Jets? If Tom Brady were to come out of retirement and sign with the Jets, would it be OK for him to wear #12? Brady is the friggin’ GOAT…but you can be sure there would be plenty of Jets fans for whom seeing Brady in a Jets Green #12 wouldn’t sit right (there are other reasons Brady on the Jets wouldn’t sit right, but let’s concentrate on the number). I’m sure a good chunk of Jets fans wouldn’t ever want Brady to wear a Jets jersey, let alone that of Namath. But yet, the chances of Rodgers wearing #12 for the Jets are probably greater than 50%.

Unretiring numbers isn’t unprecedented — especially in football. You may recall that #18 was retired by the Denver Broncos for Frank Tripucka (granted, not exactly a household name, but still…). The team unretired it for someone named Peyton Manning. Then there was the legendary Steve Largent of the Seahawks, whose #80 was retired. And then it wasn’t. The player who received #80? The great Jerry Rice. In both of those cases, the player receiving the retired number had the blessings of the player for whom the number was originally retired. Rodgers/Namath would follow that precedent.

So here we are. The Jets are on the precipice of obtaining their greatest QB since Joe Namath, and Namath would be on board with Rodgers wearing “his” number. There is precedent for teams unretiring numbers with the blessing of the retiree. Everything points to Rodgers wearing #12 with the Jets. But should he?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.


Guess the Game from the Uniform

Based on the suggestion of long-time reader/contributor Jimmy Corcoran, we’ve introduced a new “game” on Uni Watch, which is similar to the popular “Guess the Game from the Scoreboard” (GTGFTS), only this one asked readers to identify the game based on the uniforms worn by teams.

Like GTGFTS, readers will be asked to guess the date, location and final score of the game from the clues provided in the photo. Sometimes the game should be somewhat easy to ascertain, while in other instances, it might be quite difficult. There will usually be a visual clue (something odd or unique to one or both of the uniforms) that will make a positive identification of one and only one game possible. Other times, there may be something significant about the game in question, like the last time a particular uniform was ever worn (one of Jimmy’s original suggestions). It’s up to YOU to figure out the game and date.

Today’s GTGFTU comes from Angie Devine.

Good luck and please post your guess/answer in the comments below.


Guess the Game from the Scoreboard

Today’s scoreboard comes from Clark Green.

The premise of the game (GTGFTS) is simple: I’ll post a scoreboard and you guys simply identify the game depicted. In the past, I don’t know if I’ve ever completely stumped you (some are easier than others).

Here’s the Scoreboard. In the comments below, try to identify the game (date & location, as well as final score). If anything noteworthy occurred during the game, please add that in (and if you were AT the game, well bonus points for you!):

Please continue sending these in! You’re welcome to send me any scoreboard photos (with answers please), and I’ll keep running them.


And Now a Few Words from Paul

Hello! In case you missed it a few days ago, I’ve announced the plans for this year’s Purple Amnesty Day, which will include me throwing out the first pitch at an East Carolina University baseball game while dressed from head to toe in purple, followed by what should be a fun Uni Watch gathering at a local bar. Full details here, with more developments to follow soon.

Also, here’s one last plug for my MLB Season Preview, which has now been updated with all the late-breaking uni info that emerged on Opening Day.

That’s it for me. Now back to Phil!


Uni Tweet of the Day

Best. April. Fool’s. Uni. Ever. (h/t to John Flory for this one)


And finally...

…that’s going to do it for today, and for me, for the weekend.

Everyone have a great week and I’ll catch you next Saturday!



Comments (76)

    Without the guarantee, few people would remember Namath — a mediocre to poor QB for most of his professional career. Even in the Super Bowl his numbers were meh. He didn’t even throw a TD pass. But he did make the guarantee so I guess that’s something. Maybe Madison Avenue should retire his number because that’s where he had the most impact. But as a player he wasn’t much. As for Rodgers, it’d be as much chutzpah for him to take a retired number as it was for Namath to guarantee a SB victory. So in that sense the very fact that he’d wear it renders it appropriate for him.

    Few people would remember Namath? Are you kidding? Namath’s Fame transcended the game. Companies lined up to have him pitch products. He was such a big deal Hollywood came calling for TV and movies. His larger than life personality, coupled with his blue collar PA background and time at Alabama playing under Bear Bryant blended with his facial hair and fashion choices, made him the rare thing the counter culture kids and their conservative parents could agree on.

    You can’t judge Namath solely by his stats. He played on a lot of bad teams. While his knees didn’t end his career prematurely, they contributed to him never being able to play as well as he might have had he been healthy. His courage to find a way to play was admired and recognized by his peers and his fans. Remember, Namath played in an era where the rules weren’t passing game friendly. There were no high percentage west coast offenses. Receivers could be mauled by corners and QBs could be hit hard low or high. In the pocket or out of it.

    Namath is not just the most iconic Jets player of all time, which means unretiring his number would be obscene, he is one of the NFL’s. A tough, charismatic player who was brash and could back it up on the field with his arm. He was in many ways the first modern athlete and showed that a NFL player could be marketable in an era where baseball was still king. Heck, Hallmark even made a Christmas ornament of the guy.

    The Brady Bunch and Madison Avenue came calling after the Super Bowl, not before it. That game, and the week that led up to that game made him. Nothing wrong with that, BTW. That’s how it happens. But he really wasn’t an outstanding pro QB if we’re just looking at what he did on the field. He was a playboy who fancied himself something of an anti-hero in an era when that was in vogue. Joe Pepitone was cut from the same cloth. But Joe Pep is an asterisk in baseball history and Namath isn’t, largely because of the Super Bowl III guarantee. That’s to Namath’s credit, BTW. Absent that game he’s Charley Johnson with a Super Bowl ring. According to Pro Football reference, Namath’s closest comps are Steve McNair and Steve Grogan. Make of that what you will.

    “..Hallmark even made a Christmas ornament of the guy.”
    They also made one for Eric Lindros ; )
    I agree with everything else you posted…and place both their decorations (flawed as they are, life imitates art) in prime real estate on my tree every year.

    Go watch a video of the Jets at Colts Week 2 1972. That will give you an idea of how great Namath was.

    Let’s not forget that the Johnny Unitas-less ‘68 Colts went 13-1 and had the NFL’s best defense (gave up average of less that 2 TDs a game). It’s likely Namath was not going to put up big numbers, especially without Don Maynard at 100%. Weeb Eubank went with a conservative game plan in the SB that threw off the Colts D. Plus the Jets defense was no slouch either. Those facts tend to get overlooked/forgotten because of Namath’s guarantee.

    I think of him almost everyday when he reminds me to “call now and check to see if my zip code qualifies for the plan that puts money back in MY wallet.”

    He’s also the reason I know about vapor lock, the third most common cause of car stallings.

    Un-retiring numbers is they wrong choice. Always. The players performance is irrelevant at this point. The Jets already decided Namath was worthy of the honor. And while it’s generous of Namath to give his approval to un-retire their numbers, Rodgers shouldn’t accept the offer. 12 is Namath’s number for the Jets, and Rodgers’ number for the Packers. Joe Montana got this right. Went to the Chiefs and wore 19, because 16 forever belonged to Len Dawson. It’s really not hard.

    My favorite story about retired numbers is from the great Joe Montana. When he was traded to the KC Chiefs, he realized the #16 he wore with the 49ers was retired by HOFer Len Dawson. Instead of making it a big deal, Montana took 19. He added the 16 he wore with then 49ers and the #3 he wore at Notre Dame to come up with 19. Pure class. I hope Rodgers does the right thing and takes a different number. Namath was not the greatest player in nfl history. But he is one of the most important players ever.

    Interesting how Joe Montana ended with 19 as his choice of number when he went to Kansas City, the third place he played if you count college. It was the sum of the numbers he wore at Notre Dame and San Francisco.

    I wonder if Rodgers would go back to 8 (just opened up w Moore trade) seeing this as a fresh start, etc.

    GTGFTU: Easy one. June 27, 2008, first game of a doubleheader; Mets 15, Yankees 6. The only game between 1999 and 2011 that the Mets wore blue caps/helmets and accessories with their road greys.

    Ah, I thought it was 97. Tip of the hat. I was wrong on two counts, it was 2008 and it was NINE RBI, not seven.

    I was at that game between the Mets and the Yankees. Somewhere around, I have a great series of photos I took – including the moment of impact when Delgado hit his grand slam. As one of the few Mets fans in Yankee Stadium, it was quite a fun game for me.

    Re the Jets unretiring #12 for Aaron Rodgers: a big hell to the no from me. Joe Willie is a Jets legend. This just should not be.

    Gotta wake up pretty early to take a swing at GTGFU!
    ‘08 wore 2 sleeve patches (ASG and last season at HTRB), right?
    “The only game between 1999 and 2011 that the Mets wore blue caps/helmets and accessories with their road greys.”
    In other words…dressed properly ; )

    Why were David Wright and Carlos Delgado participating in socially-distanced high-fives way back in 2008?

    Un-retiring numbers is the wrong choice…unless you consider the Yankees’ #’s 1, 9 (unless you throw Nettles in the mix, make it a multi), 20, 21, 44, 46, 49. Other than that, if Rodgers has a shred of class, he’ll refuse #12.

    “But Namath’s impact — while certainly felt on the field — was far greater than his individual numbers.”

    And it’s a good thing, too, because “his individual numbers” are pretty awful, even by the standards of his era. As a Jet, in 136 games over 12 seasons (1965-76), he completed 50.2% of his passes for 27,057 yards, with 170 TDs and 215 INTs.

    By comparison Len Dawson, over roughly the same time period with the Texans/Chiefs (1962-75), had a 57.2% completion rate, 28,507 yards, 237 TDs and 178 INTs.

    On the subject at hand, I don’t like the idea of Aaron Rodgers wearing #12 as a Jet, although the fact that it won’t be in the Jets’ classic uniform (at least not this year) might make it more palatable. What I want more than anything else is for the classic Jets look to come back in 2024, and anyone other than Joe Namath in a classic Jets jersey with #12 would just be wrong; it would just look wrong. With Elijah Moore traded to Cleveland #8 is available. Or maybe Rodgers should be the first Jet to wear #0.

    Notably, every number from 1-19 (except 13) has been worn by at least one Jets starting QB; #2 was the last until Zach Wilson wore it in 2021. Namath was the only *Jet* to wear #12, but the NY Titans had two starting QBs wear that number: Al Dorow in 1960-61, and Johnny Green in 1962.

    Rodgers wearing 0 with the Jets would be great.
    Would be like saying I may be an all time great, but I have accomplished 0 here, so let me show you what I’ve got.

    I’m glad someone brought that up. If you’re going to consider “un-retiring” your franchise’s most iconic retired number, it shouldn’t be for someone who selfishly risked the lives of his teammates and opponents by misrepresenting his vaccination status.

    I’m a New Yorker who roots for both the Jets and Giants, but I don’t see myself rooting for a team with Rodgers at QB.

    Well, no; only two Jets have ever worn #13: Hall of Fame WR Don Maynard, an original Titan, for whom the number is retired, and punter Dave Jennings who wore it briefly before it was retired.

    Not a fan of retiring numbers. Once a number is retired, you’ve set the bar for others that come later and other numbers will almost have to be retired. It also leads to issues like Rodgers/Namath. I haven’t seen or heard that Rodgers is even interested in 12 with the Jets, hopefully he’ll go the Montana route and go with new digit(s).

    Not always true. The Yankees started by retiring Gehrig, Ruth, DiMaggio and have nosedived to thinking Paul O’Neill is worthy – then had the audacity to complain that they might run out of numbers.

    I often wonder wud the Yankees goal is to have no numbers left. To me it’s the audacity of the Yankee ego. This person was a good player, but they were a yankee which means they were therefore one of the best players of all time because a good Yankee is so much better than the rest.

    I accept namath’s number retirement because I think that should be reserved for people who either changed the game or permanently changed the team’s reputation. Those early Yankees greats are the reason we still consider the Yankees a monumentally important franchise no matter how well they are playing. To a lesser extent, Montana, Rice, et al did the same for the 49ers. Robinson broke the color barrier. Namath (as is my understanding as a person who was not alive to watch him play) started football down the path that freed it from being this highly regimented militaristic thing that “real men” did, just like wearing a buzz cut, drinking as soon as you got home, and hitting your wife if she didn’t iron a sharp enough crease in your dungarees. Namath (again, I may be wrong) was one of footballs first showboat personalities that would pave the way for people like Deion Sanders, Jerry Rice, etc who were like able not just because they were prime examples of male fitness and the benefits of routine, teamwork, and good sportsmanship, but also because they were actually interesting people.

    The Yankees have completely watered down the importance and prestige of their retired numbers. Should only be 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 42. Done. But rather stop there, the Yankees have honored way too much mediocrity. O’Neill has no business being in the same zip code as those true Yankees legends.

    Today’s “GTGFTS” is from game 1 of a doubleheader between the Yankees and Mets in 2007 when Delgado had 7 RBI. Of note is that even though the Mets wore black caps & helmets on the road, they wore blue for this occasion to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first interleague game between the two in Yankee stadium in 1997.

    Nice gesture by Namath, but I think Rodgers is smart enough to gently decline the offer. #12 is sacred and Rodgers will simply take #8 or whatever number he wore in high school.

    I am a Seahawks fan. The Rice thing was awful on many levels. Rice should always be a Niner, the time here wasn’t worth the unretirement, and that era of unis for the Hawks, in retrospect, wasn’t that great (in my opinion).

    Also, what is the point of retiring the digits if a past its prime great is just gonna want to get it to satisfy his ego/OCD…

    Let him wear #8.

    Don’t like unretiring numbers. The Miami Marlins probably set the worst precedent of all by retiring #5 for late executive Carl Barger in 1992, and then unretiring it permanently in 2012 so Logan Morrison could wear it in tribute to his late father.

    To people who only look at career stats, yes. People who actually do research and watch film, no.

    This is correct. Btw, I’m 68, and old enough to have seen him play. He’s famous for being famous. If he played anywhere but New York (and maybe Los Angeles), he’d be an interesting footnote in NFL history, nothing more.

    Tough to say.
    Had he signed with the Cardinals, I think he would have put up similar numbers as he did with NYJ ( looking what Johnson and Hart did with what they had). But a SB win and the celebrity? Very very doubtful.

    Does anyone know why the dirt infield and pitcher’s circle was still present at Shea during a game in December? I am of the age where I recall many September and October NFL games in shared stadia (Candlestick, Oakland-Alameda Coliseum, the Big A, Joe Robbie), but once the baseball season ended, the infield and circle would be covered with sod. Was it the practice at Shea to leave the dirt uncovered all of the time?

    The Jets were not allowed to play any home games during baseball season under the terms of their lease, and games were rescheduled during Mets playoff years (look up 1969, the only Mets pennant year before the Jets moved in 1982).

    They never covered the infield.

    The Mets won the pennant in 1973 and games 5 and 6 on the Jets schedule were moved to road games. One game was against NE so they swapped for a later game, one game was against Pittsburgh. So they ended up with 6 home games that year.

    I’d be shocked if he wears #12 with the Jets. I don’t think Aaron cares as much as PH thinks.

    I’m actually against retired numbers in general. It’s a very American concept. Or I guess, North American, thanks to hockey. I guess I can see it in very rare instances, like 23 for the Bulls, 42 in all baseball, 99 for the Oilers and Kings, and maybe all of hockey. Messi just left and you already have a new number 10 at Barca for example.

    People like Joe Namath should not have a retired number. Don’t even get me started on the Yankees who dramatically over-retire numbers. Outside of Babe Ruth and maybe Lou Gehrig, none of their numbers should be retired. My Red Sox are guilty too, Ted Williams’ number 9 is the only one I can see an argument for.

    But again, I’d rather not have retired numbers at all. Is this a hot take? Probably.

    I support the concept of a team retiring a franchise-great’s number (however that franchise wishes to define “great”). I am opposed to league-wide number retirements and retirements for non-players.

    If 4x SB winner and 3x SB MVP Joe Montana can wear 19 to honor Len Dawson, then 1x SB winner and 1x SB MVP Aaron Rodgers can wear something other than 12 to honor Joe Namath.

    If Namath could read what all the carping commenters here are saying about his career he might rescind his offer of his number to Rogers!

    As a former Jets fan I have to say: Jets history is pretty embarrassing, and this Rogers thing is proof that no one involved with the team has learned anything from the Brett Favre experience.

    But the whole idea behind doing something like this is the hope that they can accomplish literally anything for the first time since Namath. If Namath himself thinks it’ll help, I think #12 should be in play.

    They will still be talking about Joe Namath in 100 years; twelve is his. And the Jets haven’t played fast & loose with the retired numbers like a certain team from the Bronx has.

    A couple thoughts.

    1. either a number is retired or its not. I don’t buy “soft retirement” as in we’re not going to honour it but we’ll never issue it again.

    2. Once a number is retired it stays retired. If the team thought enough of the player to retire their number, have a solemn ceremony, say “you meant enough to this team and this city that you own this number and nobody will ever wear this number again” then fucking mean it. Doubly true where the player died or something, like Wayne Maki in Vancouver.

    #1 is relevant because I hate hearing they outrage when a new player wants a “soft retired” number. This topic takes up enough air when the number is actually retired, the conversation is worse when the number just “hasn’t been issued”

    Sole exception to #2: player comes out of retirement (Jordan, Lemieux). That said – I’m on the fence about Brett Hull wearing Bobby Hull’s number in Phoenix, it feels like that should be an exception too, but I expect it’ll come up so rarely I’m not going to worry about it.

    No exception to #2 just because the player coming in is really really good and is really attached to their number. Rice, Messier, Manning – all mistakes.

    First things first, perp walk is this website the official sponsor, for Tuesday’s indictment? Second, I think it be a real blast if Aaron Rodgers would take uniform #0 .

    Assuming the Jets do “un-retire” 12, I’d love to see that model applied universally. That is, just don’t retire numbers. Ever. Honor a player with a special little ceremony, put his number up on a banner or a sign, take the number out of regular circulation, and only let a new player have it for extraordinary reasons or circumstances. And then, when the time comes, honor the next player to wear the number with a special little ceremony, hang a banner or a sign honoring that player with the number, take the number back out of regular circulation, repeat as needed. It’s the perfect solution. We get to keep the specialness of the concept of a retired number, but we avoid the risible idiocy of teams inevitably retiring too many numbers. And it ties players and fan memories & culture together across generational time. I mean, what would be more perfect for the Jets than having a historically important but objectively overrated QB wear number 12? That’s literally the most Jets thing the Jets could possibly do. They should do it, and that basic model of not-really-retiring-but-mostly-not-using hero numbers should be the model for everyone.

    Also, MLB should make no new policy to accommodate the Yankees. Not having enough numbers for the full roster isn’t an MLB problem, it’s a Yankees problem that the Yankees could easily solve by just unretiring the numbers of players that no other MLB team would even think to have currently retired, like 8 or 10 or 49 or abut six others.

    This is how I wish things were done. One retired number at a time. Have the ceremony for the retiring great, and as you do it, you put the previous retired number back into circulation. This way you get the best of both worlds: you get to honor your legends, but you don’t get stuck with future generations of players wearing goofy numbers because everything normal-looking is taken.

    Here’s the question I have…if any team un-retires a number to give to a new player, doesn’t that actually mean that none of their other so-called retired numbers are actually retired? Since the team has shown willingness to put those numbers back into circulation?

    What a thought-provoking piece, Phil!
    Namath’s career stats, SB performance, and/or HOF worthiness are debatable topics, but not really relevant…#12 was retired by the Jets.
    The word should have meaning, and the decision carries weight and importance.
    Namath may give his OK to use ‘his’ number, and Rodgers may want to remain a #12, but the franchise should respect the honor and should not issue it despite those considerations.
    However, if they do not and give Rodgers #12, I take solace that he will be wearing it in that God-awful design for hopefully his entire time as a Jet.

    It’s nice that Joe Willie gives his blessing.

    It would be nice if Aaron said “thanks but no thanks” and chose something else.

    I’m pretty sure Willie Mays gave Barry Bonds the ok to wear 24 when he came over to the Giants from Pittsburgh. But Barry ultimately chose 25.

    Helps to be a little more specific.
    Obviously it’s Wrigley Field because of the scoreboard. The actual game result was Cincinnati 3, Chicago 1. It was Deck McGuire’s only MLB career win, in just his second start.

    The giveaway was #68 for the Reds starting pitcher…they’ve have been a few in recent years but it helped narrow down the years.

    You can also tell that it’s late in the season because of all the pitchers with 16 and 17 in the out-of-town games. Wrigley Field is the last stadium to use the traditional method of identifying pitchers with the stadium’s own numbering, starting at 1, which you have to buy a scorecard to look up, and only in the month of expanded rosters would you get 17 possible pitchers.

    I often wonder what the highest such number ever seen on a scoreboard is. I’ve seen 17 many times, but nothing higher. Has there ever been a 20? September call-ups plus pitchers on the DL who are still on the scorecards… it’s possible.

    As a lifelong Seahawks fan I was so disgusted when Rice wore #80 with the team. Absolutely: he’s the WR GOAT – but he wasn’t our WR GOAT, so a new number would have been appropriate. Largent was apparently cool with it, but the fans of that time most certainly weren’t/aren’t.

    It’s similar for Rodgers: he shouldn’t wear #12 with the Jets – that’s just part of the deal when you change teams.

    Hawks fan who as a 4 year old chose the team because of Largent, and completely agree. I don’t care how impactful a 49er was- he wasn’t a Seahawk. He was also 42 and clearly not going to patrol the wing for a decade. Chris nailed it- the retired number belongs to that team’s greatest, not a leaguewide standard.

    In America, the tradition is to retire a number. I think it is bad precedent to unretire a number, for any instance other than THAT player returning.

    It does point to the problem of the threshold for honors, like retired numbers of halls of fame being too low.

    Was Namath’s 12 retirement a reach? For many successful teams, certainly. He was under center for the Jets in the most important victory of their 62 seasons. Something that happens 2% of the time for an organization is certainly a lofty threshold.

    It’s an absolute crime that they don’t use the 80’s helmet logo with these new unis. The unis look as though they were specifically designed to match that logo. And get rid of the metallic chrome green and just us a regular green or flat green that actually matches the green on the unis. Or go back to a white helmet.

    Either have numbers retired or don’t. Stop this thing where the player with the retired number gives his blessing. As a SC Trojan I wasn’t happy that Jordan Addison took Carson Palmer’s retired number. Sure Palmer was a good sport and approved it, but ex-players shouldn’t be put in these awkward spots. I’d be for no retired numbers and just have a ring of honor with the players names displayed, but if a team is going to have retired numbers, then damn it keep them retired.

    You know what irks me? Retiring a number for someone who never played for your team (outside of a league-wide retirement for Gretzky, for example). Rodgers couldn’t wear No. 12 in Seattle because that’s retired for the fans. The Kraken have already retired No. 32 because they’re the NHL’s 32nd franchise. Give me a break.

    At least with 99 it was a number that no team had ever issued before until Gretzky came along. The absolute worst is when Milwaukee retired number 1 — the most basic number in existence — to honor an executive who never stepped on the field, let alone wore the number.

    GB season ticket holder…

    I think Rodgers is too much of a football junkie to wear #12 in NY. He “gets” it.

    There’s lots not to like about him, I get that, but I hope I am right about this. And it may only because he’s selfish and doesn’t want anyone else to wear #12 in Gb after he’s gone …

    GTGFTS – Final game of the 2017 season on 1 October 2017. Reds win 3-1 with a lineup that feels like it’s from a different universe (except Votto).
    Unfortunately I don’t know what significance this game has, if any (during another bleak Reds season).

Comments are closed.