N/S Aiden O’Connell switched jersey numbers because he feels it disrespects Derek Carr (1 Viewer)

[HouseCall]

Imagine if Drew Brees didnt wear #9 in New Orleans because he felt it disrespected 1972-73 Saints legend Happy Feller.

If Oconnell wanted to change numbers fine. Dont make up a legend as an excuse. Paying respect to a perpetually average qb seems, forced. Carr doesnt rate that type of move.

Shout out to Happy Feller though.

Delhomme wore 9 during the Ditka years.

 

[St. Geezy]

I mean despite the numbers he put up, Carr didn't exactly leave on the best terms and while he put up some numbers he never really won anything there. Sure they did him wrong, but he basically refused all trades to ensure they would get nothing for him.

Beyond that, I guess I just never get the you can't wear someone's old number thing. In some other sports, like soccer for instance, it's considered to be honoring the other player by wearing their number. I guess I don't see how it's disrespectful. But, I do get that the culture of American football is different from other sports for some.

Imagine if Drew Brees didnt wear #9 in New Orleans because he felt it disrespected 1972-73 Saints legend Happy Feller.

If Oconnell wanted to change numbers fine. Dont make up a legend as an excuse. Paying respect to a perpetually average qb seems, forced. Carr doesnt rate that type of move.

Shout out to Happy Feller though.

That’s fair. Guess to me it just seems a bit too “on the nose,” almost like it was deliberate. I know he wasn’t a legend or anything, but still, the guy was essentially the face of the franchise for quite some time.

The Feller example doesn’t apply here because he wasn’t an almost decade long starter for the Saints and Brees wasn’t his immediate successor the very next year.

O’Connell gets it. Right or wrong, at a minimal, it’s an oddity.

 

[Rexman100]

Honestly seems a little disrespectful of the equipment staff to do that in year one after a long time starter at that position left. Not sure if maybe they were out of numbers though.

yea exactly, the bigger story is how did he get that number to begin with. It seemed like purposeful disrespect, which is odd because they benched Carr.

 

[jahsoul357]

So he then goes and picks the number of the last Raider to ever win league MVP and took them to a Super Bowl? lol

 

[Saint Greg]

So he then goes and picks the number of the last Raider to ever win league MVP and took them to a Super Bowl? lol

That is a weird choice under the circumstances. If you're going to move on from 4 out of respect for Carr, I would avoid 8, 12 and 16 as well.

 

[St. Widge]

yea exactly, the bigger story is how did he get that number to begin with. It seemed like purposeful disrespect, which is odd because they benched Carr.

I'm not sure teams really think that deep about this stuff any more except for a few all time great players. I know there was a point that the Saints equipment guy, Silky Powell refused to give out #8, and that tradition continues now, but I think the only number they really won't give out is #9.

I mean, if the Saints can give #57 to anyone then I'm not really sure it should matter who wears a specific number. I know there was stuff about the Saints quickly giving out #13, but to me they are just numbers unless the guy is a HoF player or a future HoF player, I'm not sure teams need to not give out the number. Even then some teams have so many HoF players that they have to give those numbers out.

I guess I get a bit of a "mourning period" but I'm not sure what length of time is appropriate.

Anyway, it's possible the Raiders did this because Carr essentially refused to be traded last year so they ended up getting nothing for him and are butt hurt about it. (Though they have no right to be since they negotiated the terms of the contract that forced them to cut him.) But, it seems more likely that it was just a matter of the number was available and QB number are at a premium now that WRs and DBs are wearing numbers from 0-19. I also find it odd that O'Connell wore the number last year and won't wear it a year after Carr left. Just seems like the "mourning period" for Carr should be over.

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

That is a weird choice under the circumstances. If you're going to move on from 4 out of respect for Carr, I would avoid 8, 12 and 16 as well.

You got something against even numbers?

 

[Saint Greg]

You got something against even numbers?

I think he'd be good with 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.

 

[Alan12]

Amusing that a lot of the same Saints fans that are laughing about this would have an aneurysm if a Saints player was issued #8 again.

 

[St. Widge]

Amusing that a lot of the same Saints fans that are laughing by about this would have an aneurysm if a Saints player was issued #8 again.

I suspect that the uproar for #8 would be minor due to the fact that relatively few here really remember Manning . #9 on the other hand . . .

But, personally, I think it's time for #8 to be released. We revered it because it's all we had. But we now have a Super Bowl and the memories of #9. I just think if players can wear #57 and #77, two NFL Hall of Fame players, then players should be able to wear #8.

 

[St. Geezy]

You got something against even numbers?

Random fun fact - all odd numbers have the letter E in it.

 

[Ghost]

Why do the Raiders or O’Connell “owe” anything to Carr?

He decided to exercise the “no trade clause.”

They owe him nothing.

 

[Judge_Smails]

So he then goes and picks the number of the last Raider to ever win league MVP and took them to a Super Bowl? lol

Recency bias is real.

Nothing against our guy Carr, but he is not even in the Raiders top-10 for QB win percentage all-time among starters.

Doesn’t mean he’s bad, just more similar to Steve DeBerg or Jim Hart, than the type of guy that they set aside a number for.

 

[BayouSAINTJoe]

Personally I'd avoid all of these numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 and 42

 

[St. Geezy]

Recency bias is real.

Nothing against our guy Carr, but he is not even in the Raiders top-10 for QB win percentage all-time among starters.

Doesn’t mean he’s bad, just more similar to Steve DeBerg or Jim Hart, than the type of guy that they set aside a number for.

I think it’s just a super-unique case where a guy was a starter in a place for a long time, did have good moments, made three Pro Bowls, finished third in MVP voting once, and certainly at least garnered the “Face of the franchise” label at one point. No he was not a legend, no he never won a playoff game, but he was the respected leader of that franchise for quite some time, and it is a very rare move for a player like his’ number to immediately be reissued to another random, unestablished player.

Like I said earlier, O’Connell seems to get that. It doesn’t mean #4 needs to be set aside forever; it just seems like a small slap in the face/deliberate type of slightly disrespectful act to immediate reissue it the very next year.

Unless they’re signing some “name brand” guy that wore the number before (like say for instance Dak was a free agent that went there), it is a very rare thing to see at that particular position when it involves a long time starter’s departure.