The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Thought I would share in case anyone wanted to see. Kelly in full uni,


http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d ... nfirm=true

If you click through to the photo galleries there are a couple more Skins rookie photos, another of Kelly and two of Devin Thomas

Guys I love seeing us in the burgandy jerseys

are Thomas and Kelly actually wearing the numbers 11 & 12 this season? or are they wearing the numbers they were given at their press conference

anyone know?

everydayAskinsday wrote:are Thomas and Kelly actually wearing the numbers 11 & 12 this season? or are they wearing the numbers they were given at their press conference

anyone know?

They are wearing #11 and #12.

!, dig up those old Rypien and Ramsey jerseys!

fleetus wrote:Cool!, dig up those old Rypien and Ramsey jerseys!

... and get those names changed on the back...I can't wait to see these two kids play!!

I will own a Kelly jersey. It is my last name so it'll never go out of style.

frankcal20 wrote:I will own a Kelly jersey. It is my last name so it'll never go out of style.

Awesome....let's also hope that Kelly play great for us and becomes a mainstay......

Icing on the cake brother.

Neither Kelly nor Thomas are likely to be wearing those numbers when the season starts. NFL rules require wide receivers to wear numbers between 80-89 unless they also play another position.

It's a stupid rule but it is in place for the officials, so they can identify who is where on the field for penalty and substitution purposes.

GSPODS wrote:Neither Kelly nor Thomas are likely to be wearing those numbers when the season starts. NFL rules require wide receivers to wear numbers between 80-89 unless they also play another position.

It's a stupid rule but it is in place for the officials, so they can identify who is where on the field for penalty and substitution purposes.

Plaxico Burress | #17 | WR

Marques Colston | #12 | WR

Braylon Edwards | #17 | WR

Among many others.

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Neither Kelly nor Thomas are likely to be wearing those numbers when the season starts. NFL rules require wide receivers to wear numbers between 80-89 unless they also play another position.

It's a stupid rule but it is in place for the officials, so they can identify who is where on the field for penalty and substitution purposes.

Plaxico Burress | #17 | WR

Marques Colston | #12 | WR

Braylon Edwards | #17 | WR

Among many others.

Yes, there are those any many others. But why are they allowed to wear those numbers? And is there any guarantee that Kelly and Thomas will still be wearing those numbers when the season starts?

(NFL Rule 5, Section 1, Article 4)

All players must wear numerals on their jerseys in accordance with Rule 5, Section 3, Article 3c (see NOTE 1), and such numerals must be by playing position as follows: quarterbacks, punters, and placekickers, 1-19 (and 10-19 for wide receivers if 80-89 are all otherwise assigned); running backs and defensive backs, 20-49; centers, 50-59 (60-79 if 50-59 unavailable); offensive guards and tackles, 60-79; wide receivers and tight ends, 80-89; defensive lineman, 60-79 (90-99 if 60-79 unavailable); and linebackers 50-59 (90-99 if 50-59 unavailable).

If a player changes his position during his playing career in the NFL and such change moves him out of a category specified above, he must be issued an appropriate new jersey number.

Any request to wear a number for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner.

During the preseason period when rosters are larger, the League will allow duplication and other temporary deviations from the numbering scheme specified above, but the rule must be adhered to for all players during the regular season and postseason. Clubs must make numbers available to adhere to the rule, even if it requires putting back into circulation a number that has been retired or withheld for other reasons. See 7-2-3 for reporting change of position. (Note 2)

There's the answer.

Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

My thinking exactly. No team carries 10 receivers so some number between 80-89 is always open.

LOSTHOG wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

My thinking exactly. No team carries 10 receivers so some number between 80-89 is always open.

Both wide receivers and tight ends wear numbers between 80-89, so I think the rule is being enforced, even if it doesn't seem like it. It also seems like once a number is issued for the final roster, the player is not obligated to change numbers. So if a player like Burress is wearing 17, he is apparently not required to give it up if or when a number between 80 and 89 becomes available.

GSPODS wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

My thinking exactly. No team carries 10 receivers so some number between 80-89 is always open.

Both wide receivers and tight ends wear numbers between 80-89, so I think the rule is being enforced, even if it doesn't seem like it. It also seems like once a number is issued for the final roster, the player is not obligated to change numbers. So if a player like Burress is wearing 17, he is apparently not required to give it up if or when a number between 80 and 89 becomes available.

OK, I'll buy that. Currently nine of our 80-89 are assigned with one never to be issued again(81). So by your own admission they can have those numbers. I think since they were out posing for football cards with those numbers they will stick to them.

LOSTHOG wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

My thinking exactly. No team carries 10 receivers so some number between 80-89 is always open.

Both wide receivers and tight ends wear numbers between 80-89, so I think the rule is being enforced, even if it doesn't seem like it. It also seems like once a number is issued for the final roster, the player is not obligated to change numbers. So if a player like Burress is wearing 17, he is apparently not required to give it up if or when a number between 80 and 89 becomes available.

OK, I'll buy that. Currently nine of our 80-89 are assigned with one never to be issued again(81). So by your own admission they can have those numbers. I think since they were out posing for football cards with those numbers they will stick to them.

That's the fuzzy part of the rule. It looks like 80, 84 and 85 could all be available by the start of the season. Does the league require players to change numbers if the "proper" numbers are available before the final roster? According to the rule, the answer is "Yes." Every jersey number has to be reported to the Commissioner's office, which is why they don't allow players to change numbers during the season.

I guess we'll know when the final cuts are made.
ey has an H-Back exception from the Commissioner to wear #47.

I would rather #84 be used sparingly. I would be afraid to wear 85 thinking a curse could be attached. I cannot speak for the commissioner on his interpretations of the rules. However I would argue the guys mentioned earlier plus Williams and Fitzgerald. I for one like the numbers the rooks are wearing.

LOSTHOG wrote:I would rather #84 be used sparingly. I would be afraid to wear 85 thinking a curse could be attached. I cannot speak for the commissioner on his interpretations of the rules. However I would argue the guys mentioned earlier plus Williams and Fitzgerald. I for one like the numbers the rooks are wearing.

85 worked for Don Warren, so it can't be all bad.
It's not Donnie's fault Brandon Lloyd didn't go the number justice.

The Redskins don't retire many numbers. If they keep 28, 81, and 21 retired I'll be happy. Officially, the Redskins have only retired #33.

LOSTHOG wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

LOSTHOG wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Sure doesn't seem to be enforced, though.

My thinking exactly. No team carries 10 receivers so some number between 80-89 is always open.

Both wide receivers and tight ends wear numbers between 80-89, so I think the rule is being enforced, even if it doesn't seem like it. It also seems like once a number is issued for the final roster, the player is not obligated to change numbers. So if a player like Burress is wearing 17, he is apparently not required to give it up if or when a number between 80 and 89 becomes available.

OK, I'll buy that. Currently nine of our 80-89 are assigned with one never to be issued again(81). So by your own admission they can have those numbers. I think since they were out posing for football cards with those numbers they will stick to them.

I agree that the fact that they posed for cards means they will keep those #'s. They could have had 84 & 85 before Gant & Goode were signed. I think de facto, numbers from 10-19 are now acceptable for WR's.

Probably the only time a player would have to switch would be if a player changed position or from D to O & his # was inappropriate. On O, all linemen must have #'s from 50-79 & ends & backs from 20-49 or 80-89. QB's, K's & P's 1-19. As a (very silly) example, supose Sellers moved to center (he IS big enough!). He would not be allowed to play C wearing #45.

This thread has, I think, solved a question that puzzled me for two years. Anyone else remember Taylor Jacobs', in his rookie NFL card, wearing the wrong number?





I couldn't figure that one out for the longest time. . .

Wasn't he 84?

He played like it. Buh-dum chick.

84 should be on the "unofficially retired" thread: there will never, ever be another Gary Clark, and seeing anyone else (like the aforementioned stiff Jacobs) wearing that number just doesn't seem right......