Re-Thinking Retiring Numbers in Green Bay
Retiring numbers is one of the coolest traditions in sports.
A player’s jersey number is part of who they are. It defines how we see them. Michael Jordan was so closely associated with 23 that his return to the Bulls wearing number 45 was a story in and of itself. I can remember exactly where I was when I heard that he wouldn’t be wearing 23 when he un-retired the first time. (The boys’ bathroom at Oostburg Christian School where an older kid told me that my Chicago Bulls shirt with Michael Jordan on it was wrong because he didn’t wear 23 anymore. Sorry for not having the resources to immediately update my wardrobe, DARREN.)
Anyway, it’s a cool thing. This number you made iconic? Nobody’s ever going to wear it again. It’s reserved for you forever. You will be the last one ever associated with it.
The Packers have a problem with retired numbers. It might not be obvious, but it’s there, and I want to fix it.
What numbers have the Packers retired?
The Green Bay Packers have retired the number 3 for Tony Canadeo, the number 4 for Brett Favre, the number 14 for Don Hutson, the number 15 for Bart Starr, the number 66 for Ray Nitschke, and the number 92 for Reggie White.
That’s a good list! Six numbers are manageable, especially now that players can legally wear number 0.
But it’s not quite so simple. There’s at least one other number retirement on the horizon: sooner or later, Aaron Rodgers will return to the fold and the Packers will officially remove number 12 from circulation. Mark Murphy has said as much, and there’s little reason to disagree. Rodgers is one of the best players in Packers history. He has a real case for being the best ever. If any modern player deserves to have his jersey retired, it’s Rodgers.
On top of that, the Packers have unofficially removed two other numbers from circulation: number 1 for Curly Lambeau and number 5 for Paul Hornung. Between that and the impending Rodgers retirement, the Packers have a total of nine numbers out of circulation.
Why is that a problem?
The Packers' retirements — official, unofficial, and still to come — make their jersey numbers a bit of a problem for a couple of reasons.
First, and pardon the pun here, it’s a numbers issue. For most of the offseason, teams carry 90 players on their roster, which means that the Packers will be right up against their limits without considering the different needs of different positions.
That leads neatly to the second problem: cool numbers. The Packers are in a bit of a pickle when it comes to single-digit numbers and numbers in the teens, all of which are more in demand now than ever before. When the NFL changed its rules to open up who could wear single-digit jersey numbers, there was a rush for numbers in that range, in addition to the existing stress on numbers in the teens due to an earlier rule change allowing numbers in that range for wide receivers.
But in Green Bay, 1, 3, 4, 5, 14, and 15 were already all out of circulation officially and unofficially, and things haven’t eased at all with Rodgers moving to New York. Since the Packers won’t re-issue number 12 for obvious reasons, seven of the 16 numbers in the 0-15 range are off-limits, leaving precious few digits for certain kinds of players. Quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs all gravitate to that range, either for aesthetic reasons or just because of the rules and traditions of their position. That reality caused a minor kerfuffle earlier this year, when new Packers wide receiver Jayden Reed was issued number 1 after the Packers selected him in the second round.
Now, to be fair, you might say “them’s the breaks, they were great players” which is a valid argument if not an especially well-articulated one. If you change the comparison to just names, you can see the case: Curly Lambeau, Tony Canadeo, Brett Fave, Paul Hornung, Don Hutson, Bart Starr. Who are you, newcomer, to try to walk in their shoes? Or, rather, their jersey. Their number. Whatever. You get it. The point is, the Packers have a rich history, and a lot of it just so happens to be concentrated in the lower numbers.
This is a fairly unique problem for the Packers. The Chicago Bears, for instance, have officially retired 14 numbers, twice as many as the Packers, but only three (number 3 for Bronko Nagurski, number 5 for George “Antivirus” McAfee, and number 7 for George Halas) fall into the Packers’ problem range. The sheer number of retired digits is an issue in Chicago, sure, but not the numbers themselves.
But to the earlier point, I don’t think we need to privilege history just because it’s history. Tony Canadeo, for example, was great. Undeniably so. Rushing for 1,000 yards in 12 games is impressive in any era of football. But his era of football was a long time ago. Canadeo last played in 1952. Assuming that a fan would have had to be about 10 years old at that time to have any lasting memories of seeing him play, nobody under the age of 80 has any frame of reference for what he could do as a player. Anybody who could claim to have seriously followed the league to the extent of having an authoritative take on how good he was is likely long gone.
This is where the Packers do find themselves in a bit of a unique bind: not only are their retired numbers clustered in a certain range, most of the players those numbers represent played virtually — and sometimes literally — outside of living memory. Other than Favre, White, and (eventually) Rodgers, none of the Packers players whose numbers have been retired played more recently than 1972.
That’s half a century ago, and to me, that feels long enough.
Fixing the retired numbers problem
That leads to my solution. I think the Packers — and teams in general — should do away with the practice of permanently retiring numbers (barring special exceptions) and instead come up with a system for taking them temporarily out of circulation. Here’s how that would work in practice.
I propose limiting every team to five “out of circulation” numbers with a sixth reserved for a special, permanent retirement. These five numbers would work in sequence: you could retire any five numbers you want, but every time you want to add another one to that list, the oldest player on that list gets bumped off, keeping the pool of uncirculated numbers limited to five plus the sole permanent number.
However, when numbers are returned to circulation, the jerseys that bear them should have some kind of special signifier, a patch or something along those lines, that makes note of the history that number bears. If it would happen to work out that a certain number would need to be taken out of circulation twice, it would get some sort of additional recognition. (The University of Michigan tried this a few years back, but it wasn’t well received. Genius is rarely recognized in its time, though, so I’m willing to try again.)
As a related stipulation, teams would be required to do away with the practice of “unofficially” retiring jerseys. Numbers are either in circulation or they aren’t. Sorry, Paul and Curly. Numbers 5 and 1 need to get the official treatment, after which they’ll be subjected to standard circulation rules.
In Green Bay, these rules would result in something like this. Here are the current out-of-circulation numbers (those both officially and unofficially retired) as well as the year the respective player was last associated with the Packers:
1 - Curly Lambeau - 1949
3 - Tony Canadeo - 1952
4 - Brett Favre - 2007
5 - Paul Hornung - 1966
12 - Aaron Rodgers - 2022
14 - Don Hutson - 1945
15 - Bart Starr - 1971
66 - Ray Nitschke - 1972
92 - Reggie White - 1998
Under our rules, the Lambeau and Hornung retirements are now official, but the Rodgers retirement isn’t, leaving it technically still in circulation. That means we have eight official retirements. We need to trim the list to five plus our one permanent retirement to get to our final list.
The rules make Lambeau’s number 1, Canadeo’s number 3, and Hutson’s number 14 are vulnerable, and only making the cut as our sole permanent retirement will send them back into circulation. Lambeau already has an entire stadium named after him, so I’m fine with sending that one back to the players. Should Canadeo or Hutson be saved, then?
I say no. I would make the Packers’ permanently retired number Reggie White’s 92. White’s arrival in Green Bay was transformative, and he was as dominant on defense as any player in green and gold has ever been during his time with the Packers. He deserves the permanent spot.
However, that means we still need to return two numbers back to the pool of available digits, and since Tony Canadeo most recently was associated with the Packers, that means he makes the cut over Lambeau and Hutson.
Our official list of retired numbers ends up looking like this:
3 - Tony Canadeo - 1952
5 - Paul Hornung - 1966
15 - Bart Starr - 1971
66 - Ray Nitschke - 1972
92 - Reggie White - 1998
4 - Brett Favre - 2007
When Rodgers’ number 12 is finally retired, then Canadeo’s 3 will be available once more.
Implications of this number solution
Some people won’t like this solution, and that’s fair. I did say at the very start of this piece that removing a jersey number from circulation permanently was one of the coolest things in sports. Making retired numbers available again would undermine that a bit. There’s really no way around that fact.
However, I think it also opens the door to retiring numbers more frequently, and that, I think, is even better. With a lower bar for retiring numbers (since they’ll come back into circulation eventually), the Packers might be more likely to soft retire guys that might otherwise have been borderline cases at best.
Donald Driver and Charles Woodson come to mind as ready-made examples. Both finished out their Packers careers in 2012, but both had their jersey numbers back in circulation pretty quickly. Justin Perillo wore 80 for the Packers as soon as 2014, and Ha Ha Clinton-Dix took over 21 the same year. Wouldn’t it have been cool to reserve those numbers for longer?
Being able to retire numbers to honor players like Driver and Woodson would then open up numbers from guys like Canadeo and Hornung, opening the door to another player making that number great for a second time. Sure, the odds of having two retirement-worthy players wear the same number might be slim, but it’s not like it’s unprecedented in Packers history. Willie Davis and Jordy Nelson both wore 87. Donald Driver re-christened James Lofton’s 80. Rashan Gary is picking right up where Clay Matthews left off in 52.
Let’s open up the honor to more of the greats is all I’m saying. Packers history is rich and varied. Adding more variety is only a good thing.