Cash Posted Friday at 05:36 PM Posted Friday at 05:36 PM 22 hours ago, KingBoots8 said: Here they are. Hope Prather is secretly amazing - I miss seeing some of the older jersey numbers being used https://www.buffalobills.com/photos/jersey-numbers-for-bills-2025-rookie-draft-class Yes! Finally an area where I can weigh in as an expert. Here's my rankings: Jackson #94 - A+. Scorching. One of the best EDGE numbers, should look great on him, and I don't mind the connection to the Aaron Schobel legacy. Hancock #37 - A+. Oh my, yes. The Nate Odomes Classic is one of the best numbers for the secondary. It works great for boundary CBs, nickel CBs, and safeties. Which also fits well with Hancock, since he'll probably play a bit of everywhere early in his career. Prather #81 - A+. Great fit for a fairly tall deep threat WR who isn't super fast. Just looks right. Great choice, Kaden - no notes. Hawes #85 - A+. Excellent choice for a blocking TE. I would've also accepted 87 or 88. Hairston #31 - A. Solid number, although I wouldn't have minded a number in the 20s for such a fast guy. I'm somewhat of an old curmudgeon on numbers, but I think Hairston could also pull off single digits. Still, 31 should be a nice fit for his frame, and I like that we don't have a lot of prominent #31 already. Opportunity for Hairston to own that number. Walker #96 - A. I was worried he'd try for a single-digit number like in college, which would've been an absolute disaster on his giant frame. (Zero was salvageable because of roundness, but Keon has that locked down already.) A giant like Walker needs a number that won't make him look silly. This might have been the best options available - I think only 99 would be real competition. Lundt #77 - A-. Good fit for his frame; those 7s look good on a tall and lean guy. Very solid choice! I tend to prefer 77 as a defensive number, but it'll look good on a RT as well. Note that my rating will drop to a B+ if Lundt moves inside to G. Sanders #98 - B. I don't love 98 for a quick, penetrating DT, but it's not awful. Would've preferred most other options in the 90s, but at least it's not in the 70s or something gross like that. The 70s are for DEs, not for DTs. Strong #43 - C-. I'm sorry, but 43 is a safety's number. Unless he's planning to switch positions, I can't get behind this. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.