@stinkhole said:

Walter Ostanek Lol?Must be a player in the Canadian league lol.

VesnaKociper said:

Is Coleman a drunk?

Hey, all kidding aside, 19 is a cool number for a Quarterback. Some great ones wore it. Y.A. Tittie, Frank Tarkington, and I believe Joe Heisman.

I know for sure Walter Ostenak wore #19.

Walter Ostanek Lol?

Must be a player in the Canadian league lol.

VesnaKociper said:

Johnny Unitas wore #19...undoubtedly the best to wear that number. Other HOF to wear 19: Lance Alworth.

Theisman wore #7 with the Redskins. Y.A. Tittle wore #14 with the Giants. Tarkenton wore #10.

Just FYI.

@texasag1969 said:

Split ends?

Nope... use conditioner...

At the same time, our "fullback" (before they became primarily blockers) was the great Jim Brown. We all know he's in the Hall.

You can name all the other backfields, but watch some film...I have NEVER seen 2 more exciting backs in one backfield. Plum would throw a "flare pass" to either one & the race was on!

Great memories.

Mike

@tour2ma said:

Split ends?

@tour2ma said:

Right on Homey.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

... and "flanker" was the shortened version of flankerback...

Keep on flashing...

@the-gipper said:

I still prefer that WRs wear numbers in the 80s.

I agree..

@the-gipper said:

They were called "End" in that day and age... sometimes "Offensive End"...

@tour2ma said:

Warfield wore 42. Again, that was before the 1973 numbers mandate. In the 1964 roster both Warfield and Collins were listed as "Flankers". In fact there was no such thing as a "Wide Receiver" listed.

No. Name Pos. Ht. Wt.

11 Jim Ninowski QB 6-1 207

13 Frank Ryan QB 6-3 200

20 Ross Fichtner DB 6-0 185

22 Loweli Caylor DB 6-3 205

23 Larry Benz DB 5-11 185

24 Bob Franklin DB 5-11 182

27 Walter Roberts FL 5-10 175

30 Bernie Parrish DB 5-11 195

32 Jim Brown FB 6-2 228

35 Galen Fiss LB 6-0 227

36 Charley Scales FB 5-11 215

38 Stan Sczurek LB 5-11 230

42 Paul Warfield FL 6-0 188

44 Leroy Kelly HB 6-0 195

48 Ernie Green HB 6-2 205

49 Walter Beach DB 6-0 185

50 Vince Costello LB 6-0 228

52 Mike Lucci LB 6-2 223

56 John Morrow C 6-3 248

60 John Wooten G 6-3 250

62 Dale Memmelaar G 6-2 248

64 Ed Bettridge LB 6-1 235

66 Gene Hickerson G 6-3 248

67 Sidney Williams DE 6-2 235

69 Jim Kanicki DT 6-4 270

70 John Brown T 6-2 248

72 Mike Bundra DT 6-4 260

73 Monte Clark T/C 6-6 265

74 Dick Modzelewski DT 6-0 260

75 Roger Shoals T-G 6-4 255

76 Lou Groza K 6-3 250

77 Dick Schafrath T 6-3 255

78 Frank Parker DT 6-5 255

80 Bill Glass DE 6-5 255

82 Jim Houston LB 6-3 240

83 Johnny Brewer E 6-4 235

84 Paul Wiggin DE 6-3 245

85 Clifton McNeil FL 6-2 185

86 Gary Collins FL 6-4 208

87 Tom Hutchinson E 6-1 190

Source: 1964 Cleveland Browns game program

All the WRs were FL's (Flankers) The TEs were just Es (Ends) There is no RB. You were either a FB (Fullback) or HB(Halfback).

Is it fair to say that the terms Flanker and Halfback are really no longer used? Here they do not distinguish between an OLB or MLB, it is just LB. Nor between a Safety or a Corner...it is just DB

And I believe Gary Collins was the flankerback.

@tour2ma said:

He wore #42....but the thing is.....the Browns actually classified Warfield as like a "flanker'. And 1964 was before the NFL adopted number by position requirements. From like 1970 to just a few years ago WRs had to wear numbers in the 80s.

See this: (sorry, this is how it came out)

But the NFL's system, which is more stringent than the one used by the NCAA and high schools, takes things a few steps further. Here's how the league breaks it down:

• Quarterbacks, punters, and kickers: 1-19

• Running backs: 20-49

• Wide receivers: 10-19 and 80-89

• Tight ends: 10-19 and 80-89 (or 40-49 if those ranges are taken)

• Centers: 50-59 (or 60-79 if that range is taken)

• Offensive linemen: 60-79

• Defensive linemen: 60-79 and 90-99

• Linebackers: 50-59 and 90-99

• Defensive backs: 20-49

This system has been in effect since 1973, with only one change: Prior to 2004, wide receivers and tight ends were restricted to 80-89. There were occasional exceptions, like Keyshawn Johnson(who wore 19 during his first Jets training camp because 80 through 89 were taken, and then kept wearing it when the season started, even though a number in the 80s had opened up) and Kelley Campbell (another case of 80-89 being taken, in part because the Vikings had retired Cris Carter's and Alan Page's numbers).

Beginning in 2004, receivers were allowed to wear 10 through 19 (regardless of number crunches in the 80-89 range), and the first three wideouts chosen in the 2004 draft all took advantage by wearing No. 11: Reggie Williams, Roy Williams, and Larry Fitzgerald. In addition, several veteran receivers have switched to the teens upon changing teams, including Randy Moss (who went from 84 to 18) and Plaxico Burress (80 to 17, which he bought from Jeff Feagles). Even Jerry Rice, who was so attached to No. 80 that he convinced Steve Largent to let the Seahawks unretire his number during Rice's brief stint in Seattle; he tried out a teen number during the 2005 preseason before finally retiring.

This has led many Uni Watch readers to carp about how today's receivers "don't look right," or words to that effect. But there's nothing newfangled about wideouts wearing numbers in the teens; in fact, it's totally old-school and used to be routine prior to 1973. Uni Watch likes that look and sees nothing wrong with going back to it.

@the-gipper said:

I still prefer that WRs wear numbers in the 80s.

... and somewhere Paul Warfield is weeping...