New York Giants rookie and the team’s number one selection in this year’s NFL Draft, Malik Nabers, is making uni-news again, and this time it’s not over his ability to swag out his uniform. But it is very much uniform related.
Although Nabers was given the No. 1 jersey at Draft Night, that was merely a placeholder, and all #1 draft picks are given jerseys featuring that digit. Little did we know back then that Roger Goodell was presenting the star WR from LSU with his actual number.
For training camp and the pre-season, Malik Nabers was given uniform No. 9, a fine single digit number befitting a #1 draft pick.
But Nabers had actually been hoping to be assigned jersey No. 8, which was his number at LSU.
There is just one problem with that: jersey No. 8 currently belongs to Giants QB Daniel Jones, and as such, was not available to Nabers.
With his college number unavailable, the Giants assigned Nabers the No. 9, which wasn’t quite the number he wanted, but still, a pretty good single digit. Problem solved, right? Well not quite: Giants Kicker Graham Gano currently sports that jersey number. Now, Gano could probably have been convinced to give up that number, especially since Gano once sported the No. 5.
But while the No. 9 is a fine number, it wasn’t Nabers’ number, so almost as soon as he signed his rookie contract, Nabers began to inquire about wearing jersey No. 1. Early in training camp, he asked general manager Joe Schoen and head coach Brian Daboll if it would be possible. There was also a problem with that.
You see, the No. 1 for the New York Giants is already retired. It’s retired for Hall of Fame defensive end Ray Flaherty. And there’s more, not only is it retired, Flaherty also holds an NFL distinction: he was the first professional football player to have his number retired, and that happened way back in 1935. So it seemed like Nabers couldn’t have that number either.
But he was nothing if not persistent, so Schoen and Daboll discussed giving the No. 1 to Nabers with team president John Mara.
“After thinking about it a little bit, my feeling was we would allow that only if the Flaherty family was OK with it,” said Mara. And thus began the process of seeking approval from Flaherty’s family to unretire (or at least make available) the number for Nabers to wear.
Mara continued, “I understood that Malik was interested in wearing number one, and we initially told him, ‘No, it’s been retired for many years’. Then I thought, I think we’d be willing to allow it if the Flaherty family would be agreeable to it. I spoke with Ray Flaherty. Jr. a couple of weeks ago and I’ve had several conversations with him since, and they called me today to tell me that they would be agreeable to allowing Malik to wear the number.”
So with the approval of the Flaherty family, the Giants have announced Nabers will sport No. 1 for the G-men — after an incredibly magnanimous gesture by the family. The Giants announced the official change yesterday.
Nabers himself was very thankful, issuing the statement seen in the above graphic. He also personally reached out to Ray Flaherty, Jr. and said, “I really appreciate you letting me wear your father’s retired jersey. I’m gonna wear it with honor. I’m gonna do my best when I’m out there on the field to represent y’all the right way.”
It wasn’t an easy decision for the family, either. But eventually they agreed.
Mara said, “I thought it was a very gracious gesture on their part, but I also thought it would allow us to at least educate people as to who Ray Flaherty was, because he played in the 1930s, and I’m sure that most of our fans have no idea who he was. This all took place today and we’re very grateful to the Flaherty family and I told them that the number would go back to being retired after Malik’s career, which hopefully will last many years, is over.”
Here’s how Nabers will look this season.
After talking with Nabers, Ray Flaherty, Jr. had this to say: “He seems like a fine young man. I feel really good about it after he made the call. We kinda took a vote originally, and we didn’t know much about Malik. There might be somebody alive when my dad played from that time area but they were so small that they wouldn’t remember. John Mara made a pretty good point that it was kind of a good way to get his name out again.”
The Giants are celebrating their 100th Season (note the patch on Nabers’ jersey, above) this year, so hopefully fans will also re-learn some early team history by learning about Flaherty. And once Nabers’ career with the Giants is over, the number will go back to being retired for Flaherty. So it feels like a win/win for everyone involved.
We’ll get our first on-field look at Nabers in his new number when the Giants open their season wearing their hybrid throwback uniforms against the Vikings on September 8th.
This is what I think need to stop with this.
If the team retires the number, then the team makes the decision on unretiring the number. It is not the responsibility of that player, or player’s family to make the choice.
I see it as if the team refuses to have any responsibility what so ever on a choice they originally made, and are passing the buck to someone else. You made the call to retire the number, you be the bad guy and enforce the call, period. Stop passing the buck on to someone else because you do not want to offend a current player.
And finally, if you are not going to enforce the idea of retired number, stop retiring them.
Now, let me go yell at some clouds that have their shadows on my lawn.
Considering he was the first to have his number retired, I don’t mind the team asking the family first.
But, my opinion is, the family shouldn’t have to be in that situation.
If retired numbers matter, then say no.
If you are going to not enforce it, that is fine as well. But, you need to deal with the fall out.
Just stop passing the buck on to other because you do want to look like the bad guy.
I’m torn on the unretirement as a whole, but I DEFINITELY agree with you on this. I hated when the Cardinals passed the buck a few years ago regarding #99 being unretired for JJ Watt. The family is being put in a real rock and a hard place, and they look like assholes if they say no.
I feel completely the opposite way, to the point where seeing the headline my first thought was “I wonder if any family were contacted.”
Yes I think the team makes the decision to place that honor on a player. In theory, yeah the team can just decide to “undo” that or make an exception, but given that (especially historically) number retirements felt more permanent I think it’s the bare minimum for a team to reach out to the player or their family.
Ideally retired numbers would stay retired. But I do think it’s respectful to give the family a voice in the conversation given it feels cheap to honor someone that way and then roll back on it years later. And it seems in most cases it gets approved.
As a Giants fan, I’m really torn on this.
On the one hand, the Giants have too many retired numbers, football is just a sport that doesn’t have much room for retired numbers. Also, Ray Flaherty only played six seasons with the Giants, with ONLY four of those seasons even wearing number 1.
On the other hand, retiring a number should mean something, especially if it’s the FIRST retired number in history.
I don’t know. But I lean towards this “partial unretirement” being a good thing, but I’m not over the moon about it.
It would be nice if Nabers’ jersey had some kind of small patch commemorating Flaherty. About ten years ago, Michigan unretired some of their numbers and let current players wear them. (Completely idiotic, in my opinion.) The only thing that made it less awful was that they had a patch with the former player’s name and number on the jersey of the active player wearing it. The Giants could do something similar.
I agree completely. In my opinion, a patch with Flaherty’s name or initials would actually be better than having the number retired. I like the idea of having legends who wore a number connected.
I actually really like that idea. Pay tribute to the legends who came before, but also free up a number in a sport that doesn’t have a lot of room for retirements.
“Sure, you can wear #1, but you’ll have to also wear FLAHERTY on the back.”
Nabers didn’t want number 9, what’s wrong with number9?
“With his college number unavailable, the Giants assigned Nabers the No. 9, which wasn’t quite the number he wanted, but still, a pretty good single digit. Problem solved, right? Well not quite: Giants Kicker Graham Gano currently sports that jersey number.”
Why did the Giants even assign No. 9 to Nabers if it was already being worn by Gano?
Kickers always getting the disrespect. LOL
Duplicate numbers in preseason can happen between players who aren’t going to be on the field at the same time. Once the cutdown to 53 is made, any remaining duplications can then be eliminated.
I’m sure he would say, “it’s not swaggy.” (Eye roll)
You know there will only be one number 9 in our hearts
George Hunt…last straight-on kicker in Giants history. And the only kicker to wear the disco NY.
That’s my # 9!
Jim, believe it not, I actually caught a George Hunt extra point during a Giants preseason game in 1975 against the Steelers in Princeton, N.J., my hometown (I was 17). They erected small bleachers in the open end of Palmer Stadium and let fans sit behind that end zone. Unfortunately for me, the ball was wrestled out of my hands by two other kids around my age, and they raced directly out of the stadium with the souvenir.
That’s a great story!
I’d love to kick that ball, if anyone ever finds it.
Best to avoid referencing Joe Pisarcik
Take this further…what’s wrong with any other active number not currently being worn? With the restrictions based on playing position mostly eliminated, there are plenty of numbers to choose from. So what if there are no “cool” numbers available. He’s a rookie, let him wait his turn until one he likes opens up.
Phil, do we know for certain that Flaherty’s number really is the first to be retired? Or are we just taking the Giants PR department’s word for it? Sounds like this could be a good Uni Watch rabbit hole to explore.
It looks for sure like Flaherty was first. (link)
Maybe retiring numbers needs to be thought threw more as a whole. Most professional sports (teams) are less than 100 years old and many teams already have 5-10 numbers retired. For some leagues that’s not a big deal, for football it becomes tricky due to positional numbers.
Maybe instead of retiring the number, you honor the players number to be given out in special circumstances. A top pick, an all star player, etc can wear the number of the honor players and maybe they can put a special patch on those jerseys when worn.
For those that are leaps above any beyond those you could say this number will never be worn again. But I think there might only be a handful of those across all leagues.
League wide – 99 NHL & 42 MLB
Team wise – 8/24 Lakers comes to mind, I’m sure there are a few others but I think majority of retired numbers would be better suited as honored numbers
Well do remember that most positional number designations have been abolished. I do agree that retiring numbers should be reserved for whatever we call the level above ‘generational talents.’
And 6 NBA
Retire more jerseys and fewer numbers.
Pretty sure Giants jersey #8 is going to be available soon.
I initially misread that as “valuable soon”, and laughed so hard that seltzer shot out my nose.
No teams should retire numbers, retire the jersey or honor the player in some other way. The Yankees, in particular, have gotten out of hand. They’ve even retired the number of noted steroid user Andy Pettitte.
If you’re not going to honor the number being retired, don’t retire it at all.
The only thing more absurd is when a team takes a number “Out of circulation” and then if someone asks about that number, they get the fish eye.
It should be simple: If you are going to retire a number, it is off limits. If a number is not retired, it is fair game.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one to say it but this is the risk when retiring numbers. If a team retires a number, they should be prepared to never give it out again. (That’s what ‘retiring’ is supposed to mean, after all.)
My team (Patriots) went hog wild in the 80s and 90s and retired a ton of numbers. This was presumably to offset the lack of team success in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (a handful of seasons aside). Now there are a whole bunch of numbers that can’t be given out, retired for players who were good, sure, but not on that level (with a couple of exceptions, like John Hannah and Andre Tippett).
So I think this whole thing stinks. If I were a Giants great and they approached me about retiring my number, I honestly think my response would be ‘why bother?’
I’m having trouble commenting on another post so testing here.
Rather than put the Flaherty family in an uncomfortable situation, Nabers should simply grab another single-digit number. He doesn’t need to wear the retired #1.
Strange but (maybe) true: Ray Flaherty retired after the 1935 season, but the Giants issued #1 to Frank Cope in 1946. While it’s not unusual for other players to wear numbers that were later retired, Cope had worn #36 for eight previous seasons with the Giants, and #1 had apparently been retired in 1935.
I like how the Cowboys do it with No. 88. They don’t retire it, but basically reserve it for a player who they think will be special
…. and so another rich tradition goes by the wayside… I agree with others who stated that the question should’ve never been brought to the family, if your going to retire a number THAN RETIRE THE NUMBER… AND if you do decide to unretire a number than have some rules and rule number 1 is NO EFFIN ROOKIES who haven’t done shit yet!
This is sure to begin the next trend amongst the players
It’s entirely well-intentioned, but like others have said, the whole “asking the family” thing has gone a bit far. It puts a lot of pressure on them to say yes, regardless of how they actually feel. And in this case, we’re talking about a rookie that hasn’t played a down of pro football, not Jerry Rice joining the Seahawks.
Given the size of NFL teams (90 at training camp) maybe it’s time to unretire all numbers for all teams.
The new player should honor the past and not even try to get a retired number. To me that says “I’m more important than the prior person who wore the number I want”.
If he really wanted to honor the past, he’d finish putting on his uniform and wear some socks.
Is anybody considering term limits for these sorts of lifetime appointments? Similar to having your name on the Stanley Cup, at some point they remove the ring your granddad was on and it’s left in the museum.
It’s going to be really funny if this guy ends up being a bust
There are two things I wouldn’t do as an athlete:
* Request the number 1.
* Request a retired number.
You better be all that you think you are.
There was talk that Sonny Jurgensen was going to sign with the Philadelphia Bell in 1975, my father was asked about it and he said if Sonny J comes to Philly, I will give up my number 9 to him, he won’t even have to ask me. He told me he would feel like a real schmuck wearing the number of one of the NFL’s greatest QB’s and a future Hall of Famer. I said what number would you take, he said anything but 7.
I feel even with the families blessing he still shouldn’t have taken it. Kinda like when Namath offered Rodgers number 12.
The Broncos did this with Frank Tripucka’s #18 when Peyton Manning joined the team. Tripucka was getting up there in years, and the family was happy to let Manning wear it. Peyton made a nice contribution to their charity, and Frank got a little love from the fans just before he died. Fun fact: Denver waits five years before retiring a number, so Manning’s wait period was longer than his playing days there.
The Charger’s gave Johnny Unitas, Lance Alworth’s number 19 in 1973. As great as Alworth was, at the time, Johnny Unitas was considered by many the greatest QB in NFL history at that point. This was six years before Joe Montana would even enter the NFL.
Post-Johnny U, San Diego – for reasons which escape me – re-issued the 19 to 3 players…2 suited in the 70’s and 1 in the ‘90 – all 3 you never heard of.
I didn’t know that? I thought they only did that because it was Johnny U, can’t picture other Chargers wearing 19. When the Mad Bomber Clint Longley got there, he wore 16 instead of his usual 19.
The Giants PR department did a real nice job with the thank you message “written” by Nabers.
Un-retiring a number – for one day, for a once-in-a-generation talent, or anything other excuse/reason – cheapens the distinction. Words and honors have meaning.
Permanently numbers shouldn’t be a thing. Give it 5-10 years after that player has left the game and then recirculate. In the NFL, where numbers are tied to positions, it gets even trickier and has grown tricker since the loosening of the position-based number assignments.
Special players should have an idol of their jersey marked in the stadium and in their offices, but not have those numbers permanently retired. Foolishly, the Jets haven’t issued 59, 80, or 90 since Kyle Clifton, Wayne Chrebet, and Dennis Byrd have left the team, but somehow have let a bunch of inconsequential players wear 73 and 93 throughout the years for players who were just as beloved and pivotal to their teams’ success (Joe Klecko and Marty Lyons).
I get holding back a number for a period of time, but especially in football where there are 53 players with only 100 numbers to choose from, it’s going to become problematic at some point.
My high school has a cool way of going about this. They have a ring of honor for all sports, and when a player is elected to it, their number gets retired for five years. At the end of the five years, that player is invited back to homecoming for the commemoration of the jersey and then the number is recirculated. In some circumstances a player will want to wear a temporarily retired number as a tribute to that kid and in those cases the kid wanting the number has to ask the honoree directly. I don’t know of any cases in which someone was turned down.
I love the idea of retiring the number only for a limited period. Maybe you could have one retired number at a time, and when the next great honoree comes along, the previous number is back in circulation. That system would still allow for a list of your team’s all-time greats who have had the honor, while not taking numbers away from future generations.
Nabors please
Remember when Griffey Jr. asked Tony Perez if he could have his retired #24 and he told him no?
As far as being uncirculated, Rose’s #14 was unused for years until Petey came along and used it. Then it went unused until it was retired.
It was unsettling to see Joe Morgan’s #8 worn by Terry McGriff, Alex Trevino and Joe Sparks (coach).
#1 clown
Giants fan here. It’s weird to see #1 on a Giants player outside of the #1 jersey they hold up on draft day.
The Giants have way too many retired numbers and they have “good” numbers retired. Phil Simms was a solid QB for the Giants, but #11 should not be retired for him. YA Tittle was a Giant for 4 seasons. He should not have #14 retired. Al Blozis was a Giant for 3 seasons and had #32 retired after he died fighting in World War II. While Blozis made the ultimate sacrifice for us Americans, that should not result in a number retirement (I’d rather see a plaza named after him that honors him and has WWII information to educate young Giants fans). As a previous poster mentioned, Flaherty was a Giant for 6 seasons and wore #1 for just 4 of those seasons.
That being said, I don’t like the idea of a rookie getting a number that has been out of circulation for 89 years and was the first number to be retired. That doesn’t feel right.
Nonetheless, I think the Giants (and other professional sports teams) should review their retired numbers and release some numbers back into circulation. Sometimes with the hindsight of looking back, some number retirements do not make sense or fit in the history with the franchise. Using the Giants as an example, some numbers should stay retired (Lawrence Taylor, one of the best ever, Frank Gifford, Mel Hein…) and others should go back in circulation (Phil Simms and Al Blozis).
Better idea might be scrapping retiring numbers completely and honoring players in other ways (Ring of Honor, names in rafters, etc.) without that. Logistical issues will happen.
I do not like it at all.
If a number is retired it is retired.
Do not like putting the player or their family in a position that makes them look ungracious.
Hated it when Jerry Rice put Steve Largent in a bad spot.
Hated it when Rickey Henderson and Robinson Cano did it to the Mets, even though 24 wasn’t officially retired but unofficially was.
It is a Jerk move to even make the request. There are plenty of numbers. Just pick a different one.
Retiring a number for a guy who hasn’t played 1-down in the league is really a slap in the face to the Flaherty family. I get it, if a team makes a trade for a future HOF who has the same number. But to a rookie? That to me really flies in the face of the meaning and honor of retiring the number.
Shame on you NYG!
Exactly.
The family was in a no win position and likely did not want to come across as ungracious.
Even for a future hall of famer, it should not be that big a deal to wear a different number out of respect. What Jerry Rice did showed a lack of respect for Steve Largent.