JAMIEBUF12 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 i am just curious.......if the buffalo bills are putting andre reed up on the wall this sunday,why didn't the bills retire his #83?....on top of all this i am sure andre reed will be in the hall of fame some day.i really like lee evans,but i do not think he should have andre's #83.go bills sunday...and pat williams please be gentle with willis lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Going up on the Wall does not mean your jersey is retired. To the contrary, the only jersey number the Bills have ever retired is #12 for Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Going up on the Wall does not mean your jersey is retired. To the contrary, the only jersey number the Bills have ever retired is #12 for Kelly. 789755[/snapback] oh i understand that...but i would think a player like andre reed the bills would want to retire his # along with thurman and bruce smith eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clownments22 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 i think they might eventually, if he gets into the hall of fame. i think having 12, 34, 78, and 83 all retired would be a far more likely scenario if those teams won at least one of the super bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I dont know, Andre was a great player, and im glad he is on the wall..... but retiring his number? I think thats a little much. Retired numbers are for players that are absolutely phenominal and leave some sort of legacy. I dont think Reed is at that point. I wouldnt retire Thurman either, there is a strong case for Bruce since he has the sack record, but Andre definitely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 oh i understand that...but i would think a player like andre reed the bills would want to retire his # along with thurman and bruce smith eventually. 789756[/snapback] Not a fan of retiring numbers. There's 1-99 to chose from and a roster of 53... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Not a fan of retiring numbers. There's 1-99 to chose from and a roster of 53... 789799[/snapback] Let's see: One retired number since 1960. That means it'll take about 2100 years until we run out of numbers. Definitely a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Let's see: One retired number since 1960. That means it'll take about 2100 years until we run out of numbers. Definitely a concern. 789800[/snapback] ...maybe from this reason, 12 - John Brodie 16 - Joe Montana 34 - Joe Perry 37 - Jimmy Johnson 39 - Hugh McElhenny 42 - Ronnie Lott 70 - Charlie Krueger 73 - Leo Nomellini 79 - Bob St. Clair 87 - Dwight Clark With plans to retire Steve Young's #8 and Jerry Rice's #80. They entered the NFL in 1946...thankfully they've sucked for the past years. The prospect of un-retiring a number is just awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I dont know, Andre was a great player, and im glad he is on the wall..... but retiring his number? I think thats a little much. Retired numbers are for players that are absolutely phenominal and leave some sort of legacy. I dont think Reed is at that point. I wouldnt retire Thurman either, there is a strong case for Bruce since he has the sack record, but Andre definitely not. 789790[/snapback] I agree with you. Bruce is about the only one remotely worthy of retiring his number. TT and Reed are not on the same level. Wall of Fame: Yes. Retiring number: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 12 and 78 are the only numbers worthy of retiring tho i think 32 is "unofficially" retired. originally out of respect and now i don't think any Bill would want it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 12 and 78 are the only numbers worthy of retiringtho i think 32 is "unofficially" retired. originally out of respect and now i don't think any Bill would want it Noone has worn 78 or 34 since 1999. Prior to this year with Fowler, noone had worn 67 since Hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 12 and 78 are the only numbers worthy of retiringtho i think 32 is "unofficially" retired. originally out of respect and now i don't think any Bill would want it 789859[/snapback] #34 meant so much to this team during those 10 years.....78 might have the Stats, but #34 was as good as 78. He was the heart and soul of that offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_Chick Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Thurman's number should be retired when he gets into the Hall. Thurman rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts