Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Baker's #?


GOAT
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Remind me, who were 6 and 15? 

I'm thinking 6 was Testaverde but I could be wrong.

(probably gonna feel dumb if you answer with a name I should have known)

6 has nothing to do with a Panthers, I’ve just never found it to be a great number for a quarterback. Vinny (a guy I liked, all things considered) was 16. 
 

Again, none of these are dealbreakers, I’m just enjoying being a part of this chat lol. 

Edited by ellis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ellis said:

6 has nothing to do with a Panthers, I’ve just never found it to be a great number for a quarterback. Vinny (a guy I liked, all things considered) was 16. 
 

Again, none of these are dealbreakers, I’m just enjoying being a part of this chat lol. 

Heh 😄

My "irrational" dislikes are the numbers 1-6. I feel like those should be on specialists like kickers and punters. Quarterbacks should be 7-19.

I'm okay with single digits on defensive backs but not a fan of them on linebackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I honestly think retiring numbers is overrated.

I prefer the "selective allocation" method of honoring a player.  The Detroit Lions had a hall of fame CB named Lem Barney who wore #20.  They let Billy Sims wear the number.  Then after taking it out of circulation, they let Barry Sanders wear the number.  They had a cool retirement ceremony where it was retired in all 3 players names.  But I would rather see it selectively allocated to players in the future.  The Cowboys do that with #88.

My view of it changed back when I was going into my senior year of high school.  We had a really good teammate who wore #13 that died suddenly.  Our coach got us together and said that we are going to have a #13 for the upcoming season, and it will be a player that embodies his spirit so we could all see the number live on.  Then the coach handpicked the player that was going to wear the number at the same meeting he told us it was going to happen.  To me it made more sense than locking the number away forever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Remind me, who were 6 and 15? 

I'm thinking 6 was Testaverde but I could be wrong.

(probably gonna feel dumb if you answer with a name I should have known)

Vinny wore 16, as did Weinke and Tony Pike. Stefan LeFors wore 15 in 2005.

Edited by Carl Spackler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...