Between Walby, Ploen and Stegall, they really had three can't-miss options for their first ever Ring of Honour selection.

Great choice.  Congrats to the big man.  Hopefully someone writes a speech for him, he's always at such a loss for words.

It's a neat thing they're doing, for sure. They're announcing one at every home game this year, then there'll be one per year, each year after. Looking forward to seeing (debating) the selections going forward!

Edited June 3, 20169 yr by Noeller

Well I'll be, they made a great choice to start.

Hope they honour the old-timers who are still living early on, never know when they will expire.

One of my all time faves, congrats bluto and well deserved.

So, Ed Tait talks to MOS about playing against Walby:

 

"I was standing around a pile and I just get blasted from behind...I get splashed by Bluto. He then helps me up and says, 'Sorry, a guy pushed me.' I watched film..He just ran up, knocked me down and jumped on me. But... I love the guy. He's fun to be around."

Names are nice. Too bad no numbers.

2 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Names are nice. Too bad no numbers.

I'm sure it'll say Chris Walby #63. You can't retire every number or they'd run out of them.

If every Bomber had their number retired that deserved to have it retired, they'd be handing out triple digit uniform numbers by now.  That's what happens when you have 86 years of (mostly) awesome heritage.

If there ever was a guy who epitomized  what it meant to wear Blue and Gold it was Bluto, not the best Bomber ever but the honour is fitting.

http://slam.canoe.com/Slam/Football/CFL/Calgary/2004/11/21/724727.html

Also add - glad I get to be there to see Bluto inducted.  I watched a lot of his games live back in the day.

You can vote for the next Bomber to be inducted here:

http://www.bombersfanzone.com/ring_of_honour

8 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I'm sure it'll say Chris Walby #63. You can't retire every number or they'd run out of them.

LOL! There's been a handful in the last 25 years worth considering. The Canadiens have retired 14. The Yankees 21. The WBB are not close to that.

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

LOL! There's been a handful in the last 25 years worth considering. The Canadiens have retired 14. The Yankees 21. The WBB are not close to that.

There are 19 players and a coach listed in the voting for this season's inductees. All of them are worthy of the honour. And you can bet there are those who will argue they missed some really good players from the list.

You can't compare hockey and baseball to football due to roster size and number restrictions.

Edited June 4, 20169 yr by Jacquie

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

LOL! There's been a handful in the last 25 years worth considering. The Canadiens have retired 14. The Yankees 21. The WBB are not close to that.

Football has specific position numbers so if you retire a lot of numbers what then? In hockey you can have players wear any number. You can't have OL constantly reporting in because too many numbers have been retired. When's the last time you saw a running back or qb with the number #98?? Pictures from 1954??

I've never been in favour of retiring numbers for the same reasons listed above... I think there could be a few exceptions but they would have to be the best of the best historically... I think you could make a case for permanent retirement of #11, #63 & #85 (not that they use these numbers anyways!)... 

1 minute ago, bearpants said:

I've never been in favour of retiring numbers for the same reasons listed above... I think there could be a few exceptions but they would have to be the best of the best historically... I think you could make a case for permanent retirement of #11, #63 & #85 (not that they use these numbers anyways!)... 

So why not officially retire them?

 

10 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Football has specific position numbers so if you retire a lot of numbers what then?

Weak argument. Who cares what position numbers are? I think the average person does not even know about them.

Just now, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Weak argument. Who cares what position numbers are? I think the average person does not even know about them.

Because it's not about the "average person" knowing about positional numbering, the rules mandate the number range.

2 hours ago, bearpants said:

I've never been in favour of retiring numbers for the same reasons listed above... I think there could be a few exceptions but they would have to be the best of the best historically... I think you could make a case for permanent retirement of #11, #63 & #85 (not that they use these numbers anyways!)... 

 

2 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

So why not officially retire them?

that's essentially what I was saying... while I'm normally not in favour of it I would be ok with a few exceptions... as listed above...

14 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

So why not officially retire them?

 

Weak argument. Who cares what position numbers are? I think the average person does not even know about them.

It's the rules, Dude. That's the way it is. Your argument makes no sense because the rules won't allow it. OL can't wear numbers in the singe digits, tens, twenty or 30's. Running backs & qbs can't wear numbers in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80 or 90's. That's a penalty on every play unless the player(s) reports in on every play if their numbers are inelligible,.

11 hours ago, bearpants said:

 

that's essentially what I was saying... while I'm normally not in favour of it I would be ok with a few exceptions... as listed above...

Yeah, a handful of players over the years deserve that for sure. The trouble is who?

Ploen Milt Walby are the only 3 I can think of. 

4 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Ploen Milt Walby are the only 3 I can think of. 

I think Leo Lewis and Jack Jacobs are equally deserving.

I'm sure they are also. And this is the problem with retiring numbers basically. Who do you retire. It can't be that many because there's only so many numbers each position can use.