Football teams have more players on the active roster then the other 3 leagues combined (don't do the math, as it's actually not correct, but it's close), and yet they retire the fewest numbers. Probably due to those large rosters that require so many more numbers to be used!

So far the Pats have the following numbers retired:

Not a single Super Bowl winner among them. Heck, only Hannah, Armstrong and Nelson even played in a Super Bowl for the Pats!

That's 7 numbers. The Sox have 12 numbers retired (to be fair, the Sox have had uni numbers for nearly 100 years, the Pats have only had them for about 60). Bruins have 11 retired numbers. Celtics have 22 (and a nickname).

12 is going to be retired. Any others?

The two that come to mind to me are 4 (Vinitieri -- easier to retire single digits as they are rarely used, of course they've given it to Stidham) and 87 (Gronk, assuming he retires). I guess if 4 can be retired, maybe 3 could, too?

So far the Pats have the following numbers retired:

(source)The following Patriots numbers are retired: 20 (Gino Cappelletti), 40 (Mike Haynes), 57 (Steve Nelson), 73 (John Hannah), 78 (Bruce Armstrong), 79 (Jim Lee Hunt) and 89 (Bob Dee).

Not a single Super Bowl winner among them. Heck, only Hannah, Armstrong and Nelson even played in a Super Bowl for the Pats!

That's 7 numbers. The Sox have 12 numbers retired (to be fair, the Sox have had uni numbers for nearly 100 years, the Pats have only had them for about 60). Bruins have 11 retired numbers. Celtics have 22 (and a nickname).

12 is going to be retired. Any others?

The two that come to mind to me are 4 (Vinitieri -- easier to retire single digits as they are rarely used, of course they've given it to Stidham) and 87 (Gronk, assuming he retires). I guess if 4 can be retired, maybe 3 could, too?

Last edited: