Monday, July 9, 2012

What to do With Number 21


                I read an email response by Jason Wilde on ESPNMilwaukee.com about whether he thought Charles Woodson’s number would be retired by the Packers after he retired. Considering the fact that only five total numbers have been retired in the 83 year history of the organization (Don Huston, Tony Canadeo, Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Reggie White), I completely agreed with Wilde that number 21 would, in fact, not be retired once Woodson hangs up his cleats. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Charles Woodson, and I think he’s easily to second most important player on the team, with the third most important (whoever that may be) a good distance behind Woodson and Rodgers in terms of importance. I just don’t think he fits the bill of a number retirement candidate. For one thing, he played too many years outside of Green Bay. If Woodson’s eight years in Oakland (’98-’05) had been in Green Bay, that might be a different story. That being said, he’s been nothing short of amazing as a Packer, so it got me thinking as far as how his legacy might be honored outside of retiring his number.
                Wilde mentioned it briefly, so I can’t take full credit, but a stated reverence and selective assignment of the number 21 might be a nice compromise. What I mean by that is, be outspoken as an organization as far as what the number now means. That means coaches, players, gm’s, etc. should make it clear to the public that they understand 21 is not just any number in Green Bay anymore, and wearing the number comes with a certain level of respect and responsibility. Furthermore, don’t just hand the number out to anybody. Any player (and especially any rookie) better show you something as a staff before you give him the number. A player like Randall Cobb comes to mind (yes, I know he plays offense) as a guy who clearly had a feel for the pro game early on, and whose play in practice demanded time on the field from day one. If a guy shows flashes of elite ability, and the coaches think he can handle the pressure, give him the number and tell him it’s time to be a leader.
                The University of Michigan (coincidentally Woodson’s alma mater) employed this type of system with the number one. This number (the most coveted number on the team according to mgoblue.com) gained notoriety during and following the career of three-time All-American wide receiver Anthony Carter, who played from 1979-1982. The number has since been given only to wide receivers, and is given out only to those players who show tremendous promise early on. The honor comes along with pressure and expectations, but presents a great opportunity for the player to showcase his ability to be a leader when called upon. The number is not given out every year, and has not been worn since NFL receiver Braylon Edwards left Michigan in 2004. It’s a great system that not only provides an opportunity for a young player to answer the call to lead, but one that’s also fun for the fans and players alike.
                I’d love to see the number 21 take on increased significance in Green Bay. Let’s not just hand it out to the next fast guy that can’t catch simply because Woodson retired. Defensive backs are in my opinion the most exciting players to watch. When a special player like Charles Woodson comes along, it’s a real treat to watch. His understanding of the game is so clearly higher than that of the players around him, and his commitment to playing the game the right way makes it impossible for him not to stand out. Now I’m not ready to craft an homage to Charles just yet, as I think he’s got plenty of football left to play, but even if his career were to end today, he’d be deserving of some type of honor within the organization.
                It’s a fun idea that takes very little effort from the organization to achieve. Let’s say Charles retires in three years, and nobody wears the number for five or six years after that. Wouldn’t you be excited to see what the guy who the coaches finally deemed worthy of the number has to offer? Charles plays the game a certain way (the right way), and it would be a tremendous honor and opportunity for any young player to don his number in Green Bay after he’s moved on. 

3 comments:

  1. I also heard the Jason Wilde analysis of this topic. I don't think Woodson's number should be retired because of his time in Oakland. Oakland is like the retarded half-brother to fag city, San Francisco. If you don't play your entire career in Green Bay, I have a really hard time justifying a number-retirement. An exception can be made for Favre, but I challenge anyone to come up with a better example of said exception. Favre's on and off the field contributions to the Packers organization surpass nearly anyone (quite possibly everyone) in recent history. Yeah, he was a major dickbag after he realized we don't fuck around when it comes to keeping the team at its highest level of competition, but he still did what he did - amazed anyone and everyone who had the privilege to watch him perform. One can effectively argue that he was not only more exciting to watch than Rodgers, but, at this point in NFL history, is still the better QB (there is no question he is a more decorated player). One can point to Reggie White and say, "Hey, he made as big or bigger contributions to the Pack than Favre did." To that, I'd say, "Go fuck yourself because you are wrong." If Clay keeps performing as he has to this point in his career, soon enough we can say the same about him. True, "The Minister of Defense" was a more prolific pass rusher, but he really only twilighted in Green Bay. Yeah, he helped us win a Super Bowl, but I believe our overall defense was the biggest reason we won in '96. The biggest single-player-contribution in '96 would have to be given to Favre. We could have won without Reggie, but we could not have won without Favre, by any stretch of the imagination. Shit, this comment is taking on blog-like stature, so I better sum'er up. A selective assignment of no. 21 seems fitting to me given the extenuating circumstances surrounding Woodson's career. I guess the next blog topic will be about Favre getting that statue he said was promised to him...or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A measured and wildly offensive response. You bring up an interesting point with Reggie White. I guess I didn't really think about it, but it is a little confusing why he got his number retired. He was an impact player, no doubt about it, but like you said, he only played in Green Bay for a little while. I'm thinking he was so well loved in the community that they felt the need to do it. If memory serves, didn't they retire his number shortly after he died? If so, that prolly had something to do with it as well. Not in a negative way, just a way for the organization to posthumously honor a player they felt deserved it.

      Delete
  2. Reggie only played 6 of his 15 NFL (also played one season for the Memphis Showboats in the USFL)seasons in Green Bay and his best years came as a member of the Eagles, where he lead the league in sacks for two consecutive seasons. While I think his untimely death and the nature of his character certainly contributed to his number being retired, I think his leadership skills rival that of Favre's. I remember the team huddling around Reggie (not Favre) before ever game, inspiring and encouraging his teammates in a way few have done. He also managed to be the franchise's all time leader in sacks in only six seasons, since being surpassed by KGB in 2008.

    To this point Woodson has played less seasons outside of GB than White had, has won the same amount of championships and is currently 4th all time in franchise INT's only 4 behind 2nd and 15 away from Bobby Dillon's 52. He has 37 of his 54 career picks and 9 of his 11 TD's as a Packer, and his worst season as a Packer is better than any year he played as a Raider. To this point, I would agree that his number should not be retired, but the book is still out. If he can manage to keep it up for a few more seasons, and hopefully win another super bowl, I would likely change my mind.

    ReplyDelete