Biffins
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 5,112
What is the bar for retiring numbers? Has the standard been toughened in recent years? I assume so otherwise we would have a ton more retired numbers in the coming years from the SuperBowl winning teams over the past 2 decades.
Here are the people who spent alteast 5 years with Patriots in NFL Hall of Fame (so excluding Curtis Martin and Junior Seau) currently
Nick Buoniconti (1962-1968)
John Hannah (1973-1985)
Mike Haynes (1976-1982)
Andre Tippett (1982-1993)
And both Buoniconti and Haynes spent major and best chunks of their careers with Dolphins (2x SuperBowls) and LA Raiders (1x SuperBowl) respectively.
And yet the actual retired numbers are
Gino Cappelletti 20 New England Patriots 1960—70
Mike Haynes 40 New England Patriots 1976—82
Steve Nelson 57 New England Patriots 1974—87
John Hannah 73 New England Patriots 1973—85
Bruce Armstrong 78 New England Patriots 1987—2000
Jim Lee Hunt 79 New England Patriots 1960—70
Bob Dee 89 New England Patriots 1960—67
One could argue only Hannah, Cappelletti, and perhaps Haynes deserve it under this criteria. There are tons of players with better careers than Bob Dee or Jim Lee Hunt and their numbers are not retired. Not to mention Nelson played alongside Tippett and wasn't better than Tippett. So what gives? Can someone explain why Nelson is retired when Tippett is not and Tippett is in NFL HoF and Nelson isn't, when they both were LBs in same era and spent entire careers with Patriots.
I am assuming the Patriots HoF was created to honor players without retiring numbers, since retiring so many numbers can become impractical in the large NFL rosters.
So, if no numbers were retired since the creation of Pats HoF in 1992. I would be ok.
BUT, we retired Armstrong after Pats HoF was already around. So what's the deal there?
And are we going to still retire numbers in the future or not? Is Armstrong the new (stricter) standard. Are we going to retire Brady's 12? Do we have other Patriots with better and more illustrious careers than Armstrong (6 Pro Bowls and 2x Second-Team All-Pro) ? I'd argue yes. Gronkowski (4x Pro Bowls, 4x First Team All-Pro) , Logan Mankins (7x ProBowls, 1x First Team All-Pro 5x Second-Team All-Pro) , Richard Seymour (3 Super Bowls, 7 Pro Bowls, 3x First Team All-Pro and 2x 2nd Team All-Pro), Vince Wilfork (2x SuperBowls, 5 Pro Bowls, 1x First Team All-Pro, 3x Second Team All-Pro), Ty Law (3x SuperBowls, 5x Pro Bowls, 2x First Team All-Pro).
Are we going to retire Gronk, Mankins, Seymour, Wilfork and Law as well? Or none of them and only Brady. Is Brady the only name we ever retire again and the rest just get HoF.
Do we un-retire some numbers from the past, as some other teams have done?
Here are the people who spent alteast 5 years with Patriots in NFL Hall of Fame (so excluding Curtis Martin and Junior Seau) currently
Nick Buoniconti (1962-1968)
John Hannah (1973-1985)
Mike Haynes (1976-1982)
Andre Tippett (1982-1993)
And both Buoniconti and Haynes spent major and best chunks of their careers with Dolphins (2x SuperBowls) and LA Raiders (1x SuperBowl) respectively.
And yet the actual retired numbers are
Gino Cappelletti 20 New England Patriots 1960—70
Mike Haynes 40 New England Patriots 1976—82
Steve Nelson 57 New England Patriots 1974—87
John Hannah 73 New England Patriots 1973—85
Bruce Armstrong 78 New England Patriots 1987—2000
Jim Lee Hunt 79 New England Patriots 1960—70
Bob Dee 89 New England Patriots 1960—67
One could argue only Hannah, Cappelletti, and perhaps Haynes deserve it under this criteria. There are tons of players with better careers than Bob Dee or Jim Lee Hunt and their numbers are not retired. Not to mention Nelson played alongside Tippett and wasn't better than Tippett. So what gives? Can someone explain why Nelson is retired when Tippett is not and Tippett is in NFL HoF and Nelson isn't, when they both were LBs in same era and spent entire careers with Patriots.
I am assuming the Patriots HoF was created to honor players without retiring numbers, since retiring so many numbers can become impractical in the large NFL rosters.
So, if no numbers were retired since the creation of Pats HoF in 1992. I would be ok.
BUT, we retired Armstrong after Pats HoF was already around. So what's the deal there?
And are we going to still retire numbers in the future or not? Is Armstrong the new (stricter) standard. Are we going to retire Brady's 12? Do we have other Patriots with better and more illustrious careers than Armstrong (6 Pro Bowls and 2x Second-Team All-Pro) ? I'd argue yes. Gronkowski (4x Pro Bowls, 4x First Team All-Pro) , Logan Mankins (7x ProBowls, 1x First Team All-Pro 5x Second-Team All-Pro) , Richard Seymour (3 Super Bowls, 7 Pro Bowls, 3x First Team All-Pro and 2x 2nd Team All-Pro), Vince Wilfork (2x SuperBowls, 5 Pro Bowls, 1x First Team All-Pro, 3x Second Team All-Pro), Ty Law (3x SuperBowls, 5x Pro Bowls, 2x First Team All-Pro).
Are we going to retire Gronk, Mankins, Seymour, Wilfork and Law as well? Or none of them and only Brady. Is Brady the only name we ever retire again and the rest just get HoF.
Do we un-retire some numbers from the past, as some other teams have done?
Last edited: