Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

03 Nov 2005

Making a Number for Themselves

Teen Titans Go! No, I'm not talking about the Tennessee defense, I'm talking about all the wide receivers with numbers in the teens. Essentially, Roy Williams here is saying that number 88 makes you look boxy. What is this, an episode of "Sex in the City?" "Miranda, do I look fat in this number?"

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 03 Nov 2005

14 comments, Last at 03 Nov 2005, 4:57pm by princeton73

Comments

1
by dCalla (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 1:22am

So, if I read this correctly, all of the young, original guys wear 11?

2
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 3:11am

Most worthless article ever. Ever. Without a doubt. I have no doubt in my mind. That this is the most worthless article. Mayor of Worthlessville. Completely. I am sick now.

3
by kyle (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 4:56am

what, no one clambering to be #13? why doesn't a WR do all the talentless hack sports journalists a favor and give them another article to meet a deadline with by choosing the unluckiest number of all?

4
by Browns Dude (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 7:46am

80, 81 and 88 are the best numbers for a WR.

82, 84 and 87 are OK.

83,85,86 and 89 are not good numbers for WR's.

5
by Browns Dude (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 7:59am

Now that I RTA,

"Because Toomer hasn't changed teams, he isn't permitted to switch numbers."

-Then why were Holt and Burress (while in Pgh) able to switch numbers?

6
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 9:43am

Browns Dude --

why were Holt and Burress (while in Pgh) able to switch numbers?
They switched to numbers in the 80s. What is not permitted to Toomer, is a switch into the teens (he wants #18), since he's neither a rookie nor switching teams.

Yet another example of the NFL's arbitrary, "one-eyed jacks are wild" style of rule-making.

7
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 11:24am

I always liked the reverse switch that the old San Diego Chargers had--Lance Alworth wore #19, while John Hadl wore #21

He's the last QB to wear a # higher than 19, right?

(not counting emergency QB's)

8
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 11:26am

83,85,86 and 89 are not good numbers for WR’s

83 and 89 are TE numbers

those numbers are just inherently slow

86=Gary Collins

9
by Tom Kelso (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 11:57am

19 -- Lane Alworth, Don Maynard
17 -- Sam Havrilak
42 -- Paul Warfield

Yeah, this is a hot new thing. What a waste of bandwidth.

10
by MikeT (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 1:07pm

Phew. I was going to do a Too Deep Zone on uniform numbers that specifically covered WRs with numbers in the teens.

Glad this guy did it first and got all of the scorn.

11
by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 2:31pm

83,85,86 and 89 are not good numbers for WR’s

83 and 89 are TE numbers

83 is the number of the most current WR to win Superbowl MVP. Sounds pretty good to me.

12
by Francisco (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 2:46pm

Sure, but 83 remains kinda a scrubby number. You realize of course that no amount of data analysis will change my mind, for this is one of those "subjective" things. By the way, I love Brandon Stokley.

13
by Adam T (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 4:23pm

Worthless article? Not at all... It's got another angle on the minds of weirdo WRs, plus some insight into the NFL's arcane uniform rules. I was wondering why so many guys were suddenly wearing numbers in the teens last year.

Does 88 make Marvin Harrison look fat? #4 - Hines Ward has 86, Chad Johnson has 85, and Branch has 83, Santana Moss has 89... and I'm seeing a lot less 80s, 82s, and 87s starting lately. Times are changing.

14
by princeton73 (not verified) :: Thu, 11/03/2005 - 4:57pm

26--Ray Renfro

25--Frank Pitts

33--Reggie Rucker