aussiebills Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I no i am being picky, but i value tradition, and isnt the Buffalo Bills #83 jersey, reserved for unless they are the focal point of the offense, i just think that since Martin wont even get onto the field why give him a number with such history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Is it possible that Martin might be one of the first to go to make room for a backup O-lineman who we should pick up from other teams' cuts? Perhaps Martin's hold of 83 might be very temporary. If Ruvell really brings it then it's just a pleasant surprise for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 It's a number. Nothing more. Not worth losing sleep over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Until it's retired it should be fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 With the NFL's willingness to allow WRs to wear numbers in the teens more frequently there's really no reason to continue giving out #83. it is just a number but it has been issued almost continuously since Andre Reed was released (Dave Moore started wearing it in 2002 and right up until Lee Evans was drafted) and it is an unnecessary slap in the face to Reed. At least that's how he's taken it publicly, and it's foolish to upset the team's greatest goodwill ambassadors, especially in such dark times for the franchise where current players are speaking out about being disrespected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I am afraid the number 83 will be kept in circulation for two reasons. 1. Andre Reed wasn't drafted or picked up off of waivers by this staff. 2. Ralph probably doesn't remember Reed. So the number stays. Besides, Reed was so many years ago. who really remembers him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copernicus137 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Until it's retired it should be fair game. 12 is the only retired number. Should 34 and 78 be fair game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 12 is the only retired number. Should 34 and 78 be fair game? That depends on if Ralph remembers them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I'd say let Reed make the HOF before they talk about retiring his number. Until it's retired, it's fair game. Who really gives a crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I'd say let Reed make the HOF before they talk about retiring his number. Until it's retired, it's fair game. Who really gives a crap? I agree. Besides, if you put the letter G in front of Reed, what does that spell? Ralph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 12 is the only retired number. Should 34 and 78 be fair game? Yup. If they should be off limits, retire them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) I no i am being picky, but i value tradition, and isnt the Buffalo Bills #83 jersey, reserved for unless they are the focal point of the offense, i just think that since Martin wont even get onto the field why give him a number with such history History? Let's see: 83 Harrison (Hatch) Rosdahl, Bobby Crockett, Clyde Glossen, Bob Christiansen, Sherman White, Preston Dennard, Andre Reed, Dave Moore, Lee Evans Other than the great Andre Reed, I don't see anyone else worthy. Evans was OK but still a career loser, and I was never much of a Sherman White fan. Edited September 4, 2011 by Rico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Yup. If they should be off limits, retire them. I'd prefer if they'd just retire the numbers outright, but the NFL typically frowns on official number retirements. As it is, the Bills have publicly stated that 34, 78 and 32 are no longer issued "out of respect" for Thurman, Bruce and OJ. By continuing to issue 83 it subtly implies a lack of respect for Andre Reed, regardless of whether or not it's true--- I don't think the Bills organization has any ill will or disrespect for him, fwiw, but it sends that message and Reed has commented on it from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 History? Let's see: 83 Harrison (Hatch) Rosdahl, Bobby Crockett, Clyde Glossen, Bob Christiansen, Sherman White, Preston Dennard, Andre Reed, Dave Moore, Lee Evans Other than the great Andre Reed, I don't see anyone else worthy. Evans was OK but still a career loser, and I was never much of a Sherman White fan. Evans and Reed have the exact same number of Super Bowl rings. So why is Evans the career loser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Evans and Reed have the exact same number of Super Bowl rings. So why is Evans the career loser? You're comparing Andre Reed to Lee Evans. Listen to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I am afraid the number 83 will be kept in circulation for two reasons. 1. Andre Reed wasn't drafted or picked up off of waivers by this staff. 2. Ralph probably doesn't remember Reed. So the number stays. Besides, Reed was so many years ago. who really remembers him? anyone who doesn't remember Andre isn't much of a fan...I can understand not having gotten to see him play live, but he was such a big part of a great era of Bills football, no Bills fan can ignore it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Evans and Reed have the exact same number of Super Bowl rings. So why is Evans the career loser? Did you miss the past 7 years? Edited September 4, 2011 by Rico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoretalk Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 12 is the only retired number. Should 34 and 78 be fair game? It is time to retire both of those numbers and 15 in honor of the only quarterback who led us to two championships! Having four numbers retired is reasonable and a tribute to Thurman, BRUUUUUUUUUUUUCE, and Jack! As for 83 ... I saw it as a slap in Evans' face because of the poor value we received in the trade for him but in no way was this a slap at Andre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Were you in a coma the past 7 years? I must have been in a coma when Andre Reed led the Bills to hoisting a Lombardi Trophy. I am not even coming close to saying Lee Evans was as good of a Bills WR as Andre Reed was. Not stupid. My point is that someone called Lee Evans a career loser. What defines a winner? Being part of a team with a winning record, or being part of a Super Bowl champion team? Edited September 4, 2011 by gugny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkndjohn2 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I think we've lost the point of the topic. Why is Ruvell Martin even still on the team?!?!? Namaan R. showed more promise. Ruvell had 3 dropped passes in his tryout preseason game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts