Who cares about numbers, anyway?

by Ed Valentine on May 9, 2008 9:15 AM EDT in News Comment 24 comments

Meet Kenny Phillips. No. 1 on your Giants' draft board. No. 1 at the University of Miami. No. 1 in my heart ... for taking uniform number 21.

Yep, when rookie mini-camp opens today Phillips will be wearing 21, the number formerly worn by some former Giant running back. What was his name? Tiki something. Blabber? Blubber? Berber?

Seriously, it is interesting to me how quickly the Giants have put No. 21 back into circulation. I doubt there will be an outcry like the one that happened this spring when the Yankees tried to put their own No. 21, formerly worn by Paul O'Neill, back in circulation.

In fact, I doubt anyone will really care at all.

Why is it that, in baseball, we get all worked up about uniform numbers and which ones should no longer be worn? In football, though, we don't seem to give a hoot.

The Giants have retired only 11 numbers in their history. They are as follows:

1 -- Ray Flaherty
4 -- Tuffy Leemans
7 -- Mel Hein
11 -- Phil Simms
14 -- Y.A. Tittle
16 -- Frank Gifford
32 -- Al Blozis
40 -- Joe Morrison
42 -- Charlie Conerly
50 -- Ken Strong
56 -- Lawrence Taylor

Oh, and one more thing. Bryan Kehl, the rookie linebacker from BYU, will be wearing No. 53 when he hits the field this morning. Harry Carson's 53.

How is it that Simms has his number retired, but Carson doesn't? Isn't Carson the one in the Hall of Fame?

Honestly, it doesn't bother that 21 is already in circulation for the Giants. It does bother me, though, that the Giants haven't retired Carson's number.

Your thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed

53 should be retired. I believe Brandon Short was 53 his first time with the Giants as well. I understand there are only so many numbers to go around when you have 45 guys on the roster, but still, its Harry Carson.

I have no problem with 21 being used again, I don’t think Reyna Thompson will mind either

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by Jim Schmiedeberg on May 9, 2008 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What bothers me is that

Siim’s # has been reitred. Always liked him, thought he did a good job as a Giant, recognize he probaly had the greatest game of any SB QB, but still don’t believe he’s worthy of having his # retired. Same goes with Joe Morrison. Al Blozis I understand. He only played two years before getting killed in combat during WWII. He was a sure HOFer and a war hero. I wrote a little blurb about him on BBV last year.

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 9:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Simms

My feeling is that if you are going to retire Simms number you have to retire Carson’s. Simms was a good, gritty QB and I loved him when he played with the Giants. But, Carson is in the Hall and was a better player.

by Ed Valentine on May 9, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thing

I guarantee you Tiki has something to say about it, and he will bash Coughlin (again) for it

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by Jim Schmiedeberg on May 9, 2008 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If he does, his lips are looser than I thought.

You would think that with all the scorn and ridicule Blabber’s mouth has brought down on him he has learned to keep it shut.

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope he does

and the team starts training camp ALL wearing 21.

We're only gonna score 17 points?

by big blue wrecking crew on May 9, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My guess is

for teams that don’t put the player’s name on the jersey, like the Yankees, the number practically is their name. Although I wouldn’t call it an outcry, their is a similar sentiment for college football jersey numbers as well, I think for nearly the same reason.

by rzor on May 9, 2008 9:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BTW, just because I don't think Morrison

wasn’t worthy of having his # retired doesn’t mean i don’t think he’s worthy of being considred for the All-time Giants team. He is. He was a vey valuable player.

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Simms

I have no problem with his number being retired. Seeing someone else wear number 11 would just never look right. There are just certain players that you come to identify with their number

Simms, Messier, Mantle, LT, Gretzky are a few that come to mind for me.

Tiki can’t help himself George, he loves to hear himself talk

Giants fan from the womb to the tomb

by Jim Schmiedeberg on May 9, 2008 9:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wait a minuite, jr, I think you've given me a partial explanation

at least for the retired # mystery: (Some) fans ID (some) players with the # on their jersey? Is that it (at least partially?) No wonder I don’t get that part of it. I can’t tell you the number on the jersey of any Giants player on the retired jersey list. I can’t tell you the number on the jersey of any Giants player, now or in the past, not even my all-time favorites.
On a different front. Al Blozis—you younger guys have no idea how famous that guy was in his day, a champion shotputter and the best defensive tackle in his time, maybe even better than Weinmeister, who came along after WWII.

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any Giants player?

Come one George, you had to have known LT’s! LOL.

by potroast on May 9, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The more I look at retired #s of Giants players,

the less sense it makes. In addition to Carson, what happend to the likes of Tunnel, Robustelli, Huff, etc.?

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 10:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Numbers

I just don’t know. I think there should be some respect given to these guys.

by Ed Valentine on May 9, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a great point ...

what the hell are the Giants thinking?

by potroast on May 9, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

#53 will always be Carson

I do not know the standard the Giants use to retire numbers or if there is a standard, but to me #53 will always be Harry Carson. If I were a player, I would want to make my own number great rather than trying to play out from under the shadow of a number previously made famous by an all time great Giant.

by CNJGiants on May 9, 2008 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Probably will be retired soon

I would like to think that with Carson finally getting into the HOF, the Giants will have his # retired sometime soon. Jersey numbers are finalized, so Kehl can always change. Plus if you look at the Giants roster by number, you see that all the 90s are taken as well as all the available 50s. What other numbers can LBs wear?

by mgr135 on May 9, 2008 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, mg

that sheds a little more light on the mystery.

by george cronin on May 9, 2008 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Which is kinda funny...

Seriously, it is interesting to me how quickly the Giants have put No. 21 back into circulation. I doubt there will be an outcry like the one that happened this spring when the Yankees tried to put their own No. 21, formerly worn by Paul O’Neill, back in circulation.

Which is kinda funny, when you consider that Barber played his entire career here and was twice the player that O’Neill was.

by JoshNY on May 9, 2008 4:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

crazy

You asked for opinion and I will pare down the words on the response.

Simms’ number should still be in use today.

Carson’s should be retired ASAP.

Number 21 should be currently available. A sad reality in culture today is that, a lot of the time, people remember players by what they did most recently regarding the team. People most remember Tiki popping off about Coughlin and the Giants and about being happy about retirement; they don’t remember how he literally carried the offense in many games. Traitor is a word that I’ve heard in relation to him.

Apparently the team had better vision than I have. I would’ve let him go early in his career, whatwith all of the fumbles. There probably wouldn’t have been a #21 issue had I been in a position to make such a move.

I’m not a baseball fan in any capacity, but I know from conversation that numbers or stats are incredibly more important to fans in baseball than in football. Maybe the jersey thing has something to do with that.

We didn't even have a chance for the "perfect season", but we did have the perfect ending.

by GAgiantfan on May 13, 2008 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

QBs

There you QBs are different. Whether it’s right or wrong, we all know it’s true. A QB who spends, 10+ years on the same team, has two rings and Super Bowl MVP is going to have that number retired everytime.

by queler on May 13, 2008 10:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Another good observation, Q.

Simms is one of my favorite all-time Giants, but nowhere near the best QB we’ve ever had, so why else retire his #?

by george cronin on May 14, 2008 6:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

George

I’m pretty sure that Connerly and Tittle on your list for the best two. Is there anyone between them and Simms in your mind? Simms is the first QB I remember so I have a gap there, but every “great” QB I know have does have their number retired. The thing is too, I was looking over his stats last night, why isn’t he a HOFer, I guarantee there are similar QBs in the Hall.

As far as Tiki goes, there’s no point in retiring it right now because, frankly, he’d be booed. Is he worthy? Absolutely. I’m dying to see how the All-Giants voting goes, because his stats are phenomenal. He’s Top-10 in All-Time yards from scrimmage, and broke just about everyone of Giff’s records. If he had the last 5 years of his career at the beginning of his career, he would be a lock for the Hall, but we can talk about that more during the All-Giants Vote :) Up until this year, Tiki was probably my favorite football player of All-Time and it’s breaking my heart to see him destroying his legacy like this.

by queler on May 14, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tarkenton

would get some support as the best Giants QB ever. He’s not just in the HOF, but on the 100 Greatest Players of All Time list as well. His career stats are the best of any Giants QB, but he wouldn’t get my vote. As a Giant, he was incredibly exciting to watch, along with Montana and Flutie the most elusive QB in the pocket I can remember. The Giants were terrible when he played for them. His best years were with Minnesota.

As for Tiki, he’ll probably win the BBV poll, but he won’t get my vote. I acknowledge he has the best stats of any Giants RB, but I just don’t want a guy like that on my all time team. I believe Giff was the best all-around back the Giants ever had, but we’ve had a few better runners, like Hampton, Morris and Roberts (he didn’t last long) and possibly the legendary Leemans as well as Tiki.

Remember, in comparing total stats, the old timers played a much shorter season (14 games) and there were playoffs only in the event of a tie.

by george cronin on May 14, 2008 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

q, I didn't respond to your question re why Simms isn't in the HOF

The short answer is I don’t know. I can offer some possibilities. He was raw coming into the NFL and had to fight to maintain his #1 QB status more than once. There were many fans and media observers who would have preferred Bruner or Hostettler. It took him a long time to gain the confidence of Parcells, management and his team mates.

Phil turned into an excellent game manager who wouldn’t hurt the team, but was never the guy the other team’s D felt they had to stop. He played when there were widely ancknowledged great acknowledged QBs around (Phil was never considered one of them) who scared the hell out of other teams, who they felt they had to stop, guys HOF voters would automatically compare to Phil, who would come up short in their eyes. In fact, what Giants opponents worried about most when Phil played was how to move the ball against its awesome defense.

I think he might have been nominated for the HOF, but I’m not sure. Who knows? He might make it some day. I’d be mildly surprised if he does. I’d feel good for him about that, but would wonder if HOF standards were slipping.

by george cronin on May 14, 2008 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs