Giants By The Numbers: 96 Is For ...

by Ed Valentine on Jul 27, 2010 2:00 PM EDT in New York Giants By The Numbers

Barry Cofield.

Going through the uniform numbers in the 90s has been interesting. Most of them were not worn before 1987 by New York Giants' players, and this is another that has been worn by only a handful of players who have had more than a cup of coffee with the team.

Cofield may not be a great player, but he is easily the best Giant to have donned the 96. The fourth-round pick from Northwestern has been a solid contributor at defensive tackle since coming to the team in 2006. He has 6.5 sacks and 115 tackles in his four-year career.

Frank Nicholson (LB, 1987): The first player I can find who wore the No. 96 as a Giant. Played just three games.

Kanavis McGhee (LB, 1991-93): Drafted in the second round in 1991, but never really became an impact player for the Giants. Had just two starts and 1.5 sacks before moving on to Cincinnati and Houston to finish his career.

Jamal Duff (DE, 1996): Had four sacks as a reserve defensive end. Spent 1996 and 1997 playing for Washington.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cofield

Well Cofield here we go. Opportunity knocks and this number is open to be taken. We have all the confidence in you. We are looking forward for you to a great job this season and some more seasons for us.

Being a New York Football Giants fan or a player is not a label but it is a calling!

Let Us Start A Movement: Bring Back Tyree and Get Rid of Moss!

by BB1156 on Jul 27, 2010 2:27 PM EDT reply actions

One of the more underrated Giants since he got here

and probably one of the lone semi-bright spots on the D last year.

This probably is his last year with Big Blue tho. After trying to trade him already, and if there is a season next year he’ll probably get some big bucks (and he’ll get it)..but it seems Anvil will be his replacement. That is, if Canty outperforms Cofield.

Go New York Go!

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 27, 2010 2:27 PM EDT reply actions

The Rodney Dangerfield of the Dline

w/out question this is Cofield’s #.

"Throw the damn ball to Kevin Boss" - Andiamo708

by andiamo708 on Jul 27, 2010 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

ive always liked cofield

it would be cool to see the giants resign him and get rid of bernard and canty, making the starters cofield and linval joseph. thats not going to happen though

by GiantsReignSupreme on Jul 27, 2010 2:59 PM EDT reply actions

Another

no brainer. The number clearly belongs to Cofield. A steady but unspectacular member of the d-line.

by FrankB03 on Jul 27, 2010 4:04 PM EDT reply actions

Scabs?

Was the first player you mentioned to wear #96, Frank Nicholson, LB in 1987, one of the “replacement players” that all NFL team owners called in during the players strike? I never heard of him, and a few of the other early #90+ jersey wearers from that time, and wouldn’t be surprised if they all were “replacement players” from those three games.

Would the players strike be one of the reasons why the high jersey numbers were first allowed back then?

by Old Giant on Jul 27, 2010 5:48 PM EDT reply actions

Don't Know

I searched a little for reasons why the 90+ numbers were suddenly allowed and didn’t find an answer.

by Ed Valentine on Jul 27, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions

?

But were Frank Nicholson and the other Giants players with numbers in the 90’s who played only 3 or fewer games in 1987 all “replacement players”, signed / used by the team owners only during the players strike?

I remember that the “strike games” were the 3rd thru 5th of the season. The Giants lost all three of them because their owners didn’t prepare for the strike as well as the other team owners. That, and the fact that the Giants lost to Chicago and Dallas in the first two games, gave them an 0 – 5 record to start the season and doomed their chances to repeat as SB champions. I think Lawrence Taylor couldn’t stand to see his team lose and joined the “replacement players” for the final strike game.

by Old Giant on Jul 28, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions