BeastMode54 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? Edited August 18, 2011 by BeastMode54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? Because he is the guy writing the check. I am sure a lot of owners wanted no part of the PR nightmare that Vick made himself into following his crimes. Don't get me wrong, I would've loved him in a Bills uniform, but the guy writing the check gets to make the call because he founded the team!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I just dont think that is the point......the commissioner shouldnt be steering a player away from anybody whether they wanted him or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I just dont think that is the point......the commissioner shouldnt be steering a player away from anybody whether they wanted him or not. Agreed that Goodell overstepped boundaries if this did happen, but it is kind of a moot point if Wilson was going to refuse to sign the guy anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? You have to ask: Does Ralph Wilson EVER want a black starting quarterback in Buffalo? There was Harris, but that was 40 years ago. I think about that a lot when the QB discussions come up. Brad Smith may be a gimmick QB that he doesn't have to pay big money... Edited August 18, 2011 by BmoreBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? Arthur Blank didn't want him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Agreed that Goodell overstepped boundaries if this did happen, but it is kind of a moot point if Wilson was going to refuse to sign the guy anyways. Not a moot point if it becomes/has become a pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clancynut Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? I think Ralph's fingerprints are on a lot of decisions the Bills have made over the years. This is pure speculation on my part, I think this is one of the reasons the Bills had a hard time recruiting GMs and head coaches to come here. That being said Wilson owns the team, so his word is final. Edited August 18, 2011 by clancynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i think ralph worried about what the fanbase would do. Maybe he was scared he would lose money in ticket sales? I for one didnt want Vick, I have morals in life and he broke a major moral of mine.....animal abuse. I love animals, and what Vick did was inhumane...personally I dont think his punishment was enough. I think he should have been banned from football. But thats strictly my opinion as to why ralph didnt go after him. He was worried about losing money with the fanbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Dammit, Ralph! The correct answer was: "I fully supported our management's decision to pursue Michael Vick. We had a contract all worked out. Mr. Vick had agreed in principle to sign at which time he informed us that the commissioner had strongly 'advised' him to sign with Philadelphia instead. We have been irreparably harmed and demand 6 draft picks* as compensation." *However, we do not want any 1st rounders because we don't know how to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 just more proof of wilson's continued high level of involvement in player decisions.....the results speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So let me get this straight. The Bills just came out and told Tim Graham that Ralph said "No" to Vick. Does that sound like something that makes alot of sense for the Bills organization? Im just sick of the media saying things that have no factual evidence and playing it off as if it was true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i think ralph worried about what the fanbase would do. Maybe he was scared he would lose money in ticket sales? I for one didnt want Vick, I have morals in life and he broke a major moral of mine.....animal abuse. I love animals, and what Vick did was inhumane...personally I dont think his punishment was enough. I think he should have been banned from football. But thats strictly my opinion as to why ralph didnt go after him. He was worried about losing money with the fanbase. Let's face it, experts were questioning if Vick could even play QB again in the league or if he would just be a wildcat guy. Not a lot people saw this thing playing out the way it did. I don't blame Ralph (or any owner) for passing on a guy who was out of football for 2 years and had a history of inconsistency, poor decisions in the pocket, and a less than ideal work ethic. Pretty easy to play revisionist historian now that the guy is a legit MVP candidate who somehow learned in prison how to be a dependable pocket QB in addition to maintaining the freaky athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Dammit, Ralph! The correct answer was: "I fully supported our management's decision to pursue Michael Vick. We had a contract all worked out. Mr. Vick had agreed in principle to sign at which time he informed us that the commissioner had strongly 'advised' him to sign with Philadelphia instead. We have been irreparably harmed and demand 6 draft picks* as compensation." *However, we do not want any 1st rounders because we don't know how to use them. Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Arthur Blank didn't want him either. Nor did probably about 25 other GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I just dont think that is the point......the commissioner shouldnt be steering a player away from anybody whether they wanted him or not. Exactly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 With all the hubbub over the Bills signing TO, signing Vick would have truly led to a media circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 It sounds like to me the damage control is in FULL force here. The NFL knows this could be a huge issue but they want to squash this right now. I am sure the media got the 'memo' about this story; NFL denies, now Ralph did not want Vick, it NEEDS to be put to bed. If this was Dallas, this would not happen. It is ok for the NFL to admit, Buffalo is low on their agenda list, I would rather hear that then hear the media start spinning their wheels to cover up what was an obvious blunder by the commish. Vick in Philly excelling meant HUGE $, in Buffalo, not even close to the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Tim Graham cites a "source" in the bills organization. He failed to mention the guy was wiping off toilet seats at the time. Graham must have run out of characters. Darn that Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 just more proof of wilson's continued high level of involvement in player decisions.....the results speak for themselves. I really want to refrain from name-calling, but this post is absolutely inane. You equate Ralph "allegedly" resisting the urge to bring a convicted dog killer onto his roster with his "involvement in player decisions" that have caused the Bills to fail on the field for the past decade? Priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I believe we had this discussion a couple years ago and it was pretty well accepted that RW didn't want to sign Vick at the time. Signing him was a potential public relations disaster and RW would have been well within his right to veto what his personnel men said at the time. This wasn't like RW interfering with a draft choice, etc. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Ralph is cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Dog fighting was legal when Ralph was a youth / Civil war times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I just dont think that is the point......the commissioner shouldnt be steering a player away from anybody whether they wanted him or not. This is exactly the point !! It's one thing if Ralph & the team or coaches don't want to bring him in for obvious reasons but if the commissioner of the NFL & others are steering players away from a team that said player might be able to lift in the NFL rankings & wants to go to what's up with that ??? COULD IT BE A CONSPIRACY ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You guys have this all wrong. What really happened is this: Goddell didn't want Vick to come to Buffalo because he is from western New York and didn't want to corrupt the morals of this fine commmunity. Michael Vick wanted to come to Buffalo at first. But he didn't think that a truckload of dog food was a big enough signing bonus. Wilson was against signing Vick because he wasn't over the hill yet, and he didn't want to change Bills policy. The S.P.C.A, was for Vick coming to the area because Virginia's S.P.C.A. said he was an avid supporter. He took many of the large number of dogs they had for adoption. Brandon didn't try to sign him because when told he just came out of the "big house," he thought that meant Ohio State. We already had some recent defensive backs from there and he saw no reason to hire one to play a quarter of the way back. Dick Jauron wanted him, and if Vick signed he had plans to change his position to kick returner. Several fans hated him because his name reminded them of medicated cough drops. I asked around, and in spite of Michael's past, not a single canine was against him being reinstated or brought to Buffalo. O.J. was quoted as saying, "why would you want a dog killer in Buffalo?" Of course, now, Vick the lovable reformed citizen can throw out comments like that because he doesn't think anyone would be offended. Doesn't he realize that no one can top the Pittsburgh Steelers for offending people with stupid comments? Personally, I don't care if Jack the Ripper is signed. I just want to see players on the Bills squad that can help them win games. After the game, they can eat the opponents for all I care. I want more Ws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You guys have this all wrong. What really happened is this: Goddell didn't want Vick to come to Buffalo because he is from western New York and didn't want to corrupt the morals of this fine commmunity. Michael Vick wanted to come to Buffalo at first. But he didn't think that a truckload of dog food was a big enough signing bonus. Wilson was against signing Vick because he wasn't over the hill yet, and he didn't want to change Bills policy. The S.P.C.A, was for Vick coming to the area because Virginia's S.P.C.A. said he was an avid supporter. He took many of the large number of dogs they had for adoption. Brandon didn't try to sign him because when told he just came out of the "big house," he thought that meant Ohio State. We already had some recent defensive backs from there and he saw no reason to hire one to play a quarter of the way back. Dick Jauron wanted him, and if Vick signed he had plans to change his position to kick returner. Several fans hated him because his name reminded them of medicated cough drops. I asked around, and in spite of Michael's past, not a single canine was against him being reinstated or brought to Buffalo. O.J. was quoted as saying, "why would you want a dog killer in Buffalo?" Of course, now, Vick the lovable reformed citizen can throw out comments like that because he doesn't think anyone would be offended. Doesn't he realize that no one can top the Pittsburgh Steelers for offending people with stupid comments? Personally, I don't care if Jack the Ripper is signed. I just want to see players on the Bills squad that can help them win games. After the game, they can eat the opponents for all I care. I want more Ws. I think you just made the fans of two big ten rivals very angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i think ralph worried about what the fanbase would do. Maybe he was scared he would lose money in ticket sales? I for one didnt want Vick, I have morals in life and he broke a major moral of mine.....animal abuse. I love animals, and what Vick did was inhumane...personally I dont think his punishment was enough. I think he should have been banned from football. But thats strictly my opinion as to why ralph didnt go after him. He was worried about losing money with the fanbase. But do you have a problem with Merriman? Who took roids? Should he had been banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaPolian8693 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i think ralph worried about what the fanbase would do. Maybe he was scared he would lose money in ticket sales? I for one didnt want Vick, I have morals in life and he broke a major moral of mine.....animal abuse. I love animals, and what Vick did was inhumane...personally I dont think his punishment was enough. I think he should have been banned from football. But thats strictly my opinion as to why ralph didnt go after him. He was worried about losing money with the fanbase. Do you think guys that get DUIs should be banned from football? What if they beat the hell out of a woman? What is they stole a pack of gum in the 3rd grade? Where do you draw the line? Maybe we should let the legal system determine appropriate punishments, and not arbitrarily try to deny someone's right to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I really want to refrain from name-calling, but this post is absolutely inane. You equate Ralph "allegedly" resisting the urge to bring a convicted dog killer onto his roster with his "involvement in player decisions" that have caused the Bills to fail on the field for the past decade? Priceless. not surprising you find it inane when you entirely miss the point: it doesn't matter why he might have said no to vick, if he did as alleged, then it further supports his continued role as a meddler. and yes, i believe as do many others that wilson's meddling has much to do with the bills failure over most of 50+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smears Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 just more proof of wilson's continued high level of involvement in player decisions.....the results speak for themselves. AMEN, well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Will be really interesting to see if Ralph or Mike Brown actually comment on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Tim Graham cites a "source" in the bills organization. He failed to mention the guy was wiping off toilet seats at the time. Graham must have run out of characters. Darn that Twitter. Graham's source is not with the Bills, according to a twitter comment posed to Jeremy White a few minutes ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Bills fan Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 F Michael Vick per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Who DID want Vick back then? Just Philly and Cincy? That's 2 teams out of 29 (excluding Atlanta). So Ralph was like 29 other owners in not wanting him. Why is this news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Bills fan Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Try and not act so stupid. Please. But do you have a problem with Merriman? Who took roids? Should he had been banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 You have to ask: Does Ralph Wilson EVER want a black starting quarterback in Buffalo? There was Harris, but that was 40 years ago. I think about that a lot when the QB discussions come up. Brad Smith may be a gimmick QB that he doesn't have to pay big money... Typical Vick thread. Racism trotted out by post #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Who DID want Vick back then? Just Philly and Cincy? That's 2 teams out of 29 (excluding Atlanta). So Ralph was like 29 other owners in not wanting him. Why is this news? supposedly there was "football' interest within the bills. so that would imply the true talent evaluators here wanted him or at least wanted to consider him. cinci and the bills were/are desperate teams. desperate times warrant desperate measures. philly, conversely, is just smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Yeah RW was a progressive 40 years ago, but now he's David Duke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyBacker Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 of course, why would ralph want a dynamic winner at qb? if there is a cheaper alternative who cant play then ralph would be all over him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 You have to ask: Does Ralph Wilson EVER want a black starting quarterback in Buffalo? There was Harris, but that was 40 years ago. I think about that a lot when the QB discussions come up. Brad Smith may be a gimmick QB that he doesn't have to pay big money... I think it's unfair to insinuate that Wilson is a racist. James Harris, who you mention, was the first black QB to begin an AFL or NFL season as the starting QB. Wilson was okay with a black QB before anyone else. Who knows if the report that Ralph didn't want Vick is true. But, if true, maybe Wilson just likes dogs. Maybe Wilson doesn't like felons. Maybe, like many people before last season, Ralph didn't think Vick was accurate enough to be a top flight NFL QB. Other than Vick, when have you heard that Wilson was against black QBs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts