Skip to content

Prime Numbers takes up No. 63 on Tuesday

Getty Images

Pro Football Talk on NBCSN’s Prime Numbers series considers on Monday No. 1, No. 2, No. 54, and No. 81.  To vote on the best of the players who have worn No. 54 and No. 81, click on the links that you just didn’t click on to finish reading this sentence.

On Tuesday, we’ll debate the greatest of the men to wear No. 63.  There are more than you’d think there would be.

The finalists appear below.  Start the voting now and keep voting until Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. ET.

Actually, you can continue voting after that, but the show will have moved on to new numbers.

Permalink 19 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Home, Rumor Mill
19 Responses to “Prime Numbers takes up No. 63 on Tuesday”
  1. jghs38 says: Jun 1, 2014 9:38 AM

    That is a good list of names, Jeff Saturday from Indy was great in being a building block for Manning’s success, Lee Roy Selmon put the Bucs on the map, and Gene Upshaw was talented too. Tough pick for #63

  2. alshonbrandontandem says: Jun 1, 2014 9:45 AM

    The best to ever wear 63, obviously, is Jay Hilgenberg.

    Go Bears

  3. elliottcovert says: Jun 1, 2014 9:46 AM

    It’s hard to compare an offensive lineman to a defensive end. Apples and oranges.

  4. philvil41 says: Jun 1, 2014 10:19 AM

    Upshaw without a doubt.

  5. danjacob12 says: Jun 1, 2014 10:46 AM

    why is Prime Numbers talking about 63 at all? 2: fine. 1: OK I guess, by stipulation. But 63?

  6. bshuclassof2012 says: Jun 1, 2014 10:56 AM

    63 is not a prime number.

  7. guvsta says: Jun 1, 2014 11:10 AM

    What a great number!

  8. wtfchiefs says: Jun 1, 2014 11:13 AM

    Willie “Contact” Lanier

  9. nonetruerthanblue says: Jun 1, 2014 11:13 AM

    Guys…63 and 81 are not prime numbers. 21 x 3 and 9 x 9. C’mon man!!

  10. coolzog says: Jun 1, 2014 11:17 AM

    These people need to learn what prime numbers actually are…

  11. slick50ks says: Jun 1, 2014 11:38 AM

    Most people on here are too young to know of the greatness of Willie Lanier.

  12. kd75 says: Jun 1, 2014 11:42 AM

    63 is not a Prime Number. 61 and 67 are the only Prime Numbers in the 60s…

  13. lotusfather says: Jun 1, 2014 11:46 AM

    A prime number has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself.

    63 is divisible by 1, 3, 7, 9 and 21, therefore it is not a prime number.

    After that whole 83 and 17 percent thing the other day I am not surprised that you don’t know your primes.

  14. pillowporkers says: Jun 1, 2014 11:47 AM

    54 and 81 aren’t prime numbers either. Who made this series?!

  15. kd75 says: Jun 1, 2014 11:58 AM

    11 is a Prime Number. Phil Simms!

  16. kipsmudilike says: Jun 1, 2014 1:07 PM


    63 is not a prime number…

  17. bobnelsonjr says: Jun 1, 2014 8:04 PM

    Why isn’t Fuzzy Thurston on the list?

    He was part of one of the most famous plays in all of football history that no one has been able to duplicate for decades – Vince Lombardi’s Power Sweep.

  18. lagg1 says: Jun 5, 2014 6:21 PM

    I agree-Fuzzy Thurston should be on this list. Perhaps one of the best guards in NFL history from little Valparaiso University. The top three of Upshaw, Lanier and Selmon are hard to beat.

  19. durskichiro says: Jun 14, 2014 11:18 PM

    My top all time #63’s:
    1 Upshaw
    2 Selmon
    3 Munchak
    4 Dawson
    5 Lanier
    6 Hilgenberg
    7 Thurston
    8 Saturday

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!