The Plastic Cup Posted March 26, 2005 Posted March 26, 2005 It's just a roll of the dice. 288137[/snapback] I'll take the dollar Yo. Come on eleven......
Ramius Posted March 26, 2005 Posted March 26, 2005 I actually think it should be more of an exorcism or a sacrificial burning of the # 11, instead of just a ban...
Nanker Posted March 26, 2005 Posted March 26, 2005 Absolutely not! Actually, they should reassign everyone's jersey with the number 11. Unfortunately the league prohibits that from happening. But if Charlie Finley were in charge of the league, I'm certain he'd propose it.
Rico Posted March 26, 2005 Posted March 26, 2005 If they were to ban #11, it would be due to the 2 disasters at QB, not Norwood... can't blame him for losing the 1st SB, it should never have come down to that kick..
elcrusho Posted March 26, 2005 Author Posted March 26, 2005 I'm not blaming him... But that was his number.... I like the burning idea...
justnzane Posted March 27, 2005 Posted March 27, 2005 to say the least both norwood and bledsoe made the pro bowl as bills. No reasonable person can blame norwood for SB XXV, also Drew restored some legitamacy to the bills after a pathetic 3-13 season, and did pretty well considering that we had killdrive and GW so pass-happy behind a poor line. Bledsoe may not have won us any games last year but he also wasn't the main reason we lost any last year (bills giving up 100+ yds rushing to a 3rd string RB vs. pittsburgh >). Of course RJ was a total disaster, but because one player was terrible and a couple others fell out of favor with the red white and blue faithful is no reason to "retire" a number. Kinda like the #32 should be retired due to O.J.'s play and not the fact that he was on trial in one of the most famous murder trials ever.
Bob in SC Posted March 27, 2005 Posted March 27, 2005 to say the least both norwood and bledsoe made the pro bowl as bills. No reasonable person can blame norwood for SB XXV, also Drew restored some legitamacy to the bills after a pathetic 3-13 season, and did pretty well considering that we had killdrive and GW so pass-happy behind a poor line. Bledsoe may not have won us any games last year but he also wasn't the main reason we lost any last year (bills giving up 100+ yds rushing to a 3rd string RB vs. pittsburgh >). Of course RJ was a total disaster, but because one player was terrible and a couple others fell out of favor with the red white and blue faithful is no reason to "retire" a number. Kinda like the #32 should be retired due to O.J.'s play and not the fact that he was on trial in one of the most famous murder trials ever. 288539[/snapback] Continue to use it, but wear it backwards. Do the same for 22 and 33.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted March 27, 2005 Posted March 27, 2005 frankly norwood dosn't belong on that list.he was a hellofa kicker and just because he missed a kick in the superbowl i wouldnt put him on the ban#11 list.now if he pulled a ryan lindell and was missing 30 yrd kicks that would be different.and bleedslow come on we got him late in his career,and he was good for the 1st 8 games then he got comfortable and lost his need to prove everybody wrong.no someday we will have a great player wearing#11 go bills in'05
Recommended Posts