VADC Bills Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Not in my eyes. If people's argument is that OJ should be allowed to stay on the wall strictly because of his on field accomplishments, then Pete Rose should be allowed in the HOF. As a player, he was one of the most prolific baseball players of all time and he needs to be honored among the greats regardless. Remember...YOU guys said that a player should be honored STRICTLY for his ONFIELD performance. Right? And having a murderer enshrined in the hall of fame isn't ruining the integrity of the sport? Might as well bronze his black gloves and hang those up to be honored too. Pete Rose was gambling as a manager. You forget that managers and coaches have just as much influence on the outcome of a game. Pete isn't being punished as a player. As I said prior "a person should be judged by his accomplishments while in the game". That includes managers and coaches as well not just players. OJ was out of the game for years but Pete Rose was not, he was managing the Reds. Having players that committed crimes after retirement does not ruin the integrity of the game but having players , coaches , managers or officials on the take will kill your sport immediately. Edited January 10, 2015 by VADC Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Pete Rose was gambling as a manager. You forget that managers and coaches have just as much influence on the outcome of a game. Pete isn't being punished as a player. As I said prior "a person should be judged by his accomplishments while in the game". That includes managers and coaches as well not just players. OJ was out of the game for years but Pete Rose was not, he was managing the Reds. Having players that committed crimes after retirement does not ruin the integrity of the game but having players , coaches , managers or officials on the take will kill your sport immediately. Comparing gambling to armed robbery and murder hmm... Great topic .. The poll is slowly narrowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm with those who think the owners can do whatever. Taking it down will not change the fact that he was up there. So then it will be forever the ghost of OJ the superstar player who was on the Wall of Fame but then was taken off. In the end it is pretty tivial compared to the idea that he killed people and is in prison. That's not changing based on whether he is on the Wall or not. I think it is a matter of perspective. If you think his presence on the Wall represents a continuing honor then it is very similar to pulling on an OJ jersey and yelling "go Juice". So then you probably want it taken down. On the other hand if you look at the name and think "Hey that guy was honored in the past before he turned out to be a felon and likely killer", then taking it down is just not a priority because you cannot go back in time and undo it. I tend towards the latter but I do understand people who feel it is an ongoing honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Heckling or not, most bills fans would pass on identifying themselves so closely with the man based on his actions and the legacy he created, not because of reactions. im not uncomfortable with his inclusion, I just think he has made decisions that changed his legacy as a bill. He was honored for his part in the history for many many years. I don't think he's an honorable part of our history today, but he is still very much part of the history good and bad. Removing him, again, isn't rewriting history, it's finishing the story. Still have not heard a direct "nothing he could do would ever warrant taking him down" so I'm not sure I'm the one feeling a little uncomfortable with things. That line of thinking is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion. It is all about what the owner intended for the wall to be. Which is clearly stated "honors former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history." They are not honoring what he did off the field. Plain and simple. So if he was part of 9/11, sure he would be taken down pretty quickly. There will always be degrees of situations in which someone (the owner) will throw everything out of the window to save some face. But again it is really up to the owner whether or not they intend for the wall to be honoring on the field performance or an all encompassing honor of ones life. My guess is the Bills mean the former since they kept him up there. Unless you feel Ralph Wilson and the Bills organization was somehow honoring OJ's actions in the 90's way back in the 80's. They likely had this conversation and came to the same determination after the murder situation. They obviously felt that putting OJ on the wall was for his on the field performance, not for his actions afterwards. What is wrong with that? Why is that a bad thing? I just don't understand how you can't separate the fact that the Bills organization obviously does not condone murder, but they do condone his on the field contributions. Those don't just go away. Edited January 10, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 What needs to happen is this: the next guy selected for inclusion on the Wall says "thanks, but no thanks. I don't want my name up there next to that guy's." Better yet, a group of current Wallers -- preferably led by Jimbo, Bruce, Thurman, etc -- goes to Pegs and says "take it down, or take ours down." I grew up watching OJ and supported leaving his name up for years. I feel differently now. It's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 That line of thinking is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion. It is all about what the owner intended for the wall to be. Which is clearly stated "honors former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history." They are not honoring what he did off the field. Plain and simple. So if he was part of 9/11, sure he would be taken down pretty quickly. There will always be degrees of situations in which someone (the owner) will throw everything out of the window to save some face. But again it is really up to the owner whether or not they intend for the wall to be honoring on the field performance or an all encompassing honor of ones life. My guess is the Bills mean the former since they kept him up there. Unless you feel Ralph Wilson and the Bills organization was somehow honoring OJ's actions in the 90's way back in the 80's. They likely had this conversation and came to the same determination after the murder situation. They obviously felt that putting OJ on the wall was for his on the field performance, not for his actions afterwards. What is wrong with that? Why is that a bad thing? I just don't understand how you can't separate the fact that the Bills organization obviously does not condone murder, but they do condone his on the field contributions. Those don't just go away. So you've edged towards that an owner WOULD take down a 9/11 terrorist but still sidestepped that your argument amounts to saying that the owner would he undermining their own mission statement in the interest of self preservation. If Mohamed Atta had a 2,000 yard season and was put on the wall, you really don't think future actions could change the evaluation of his role in the history of the team? I read the history of the team as not just W-L record here, but as building a proud franchise that can be something better based on the accomplishments of its players, coaches, staff, and those covering it.....for a stretch OJ was something the bills could be proud to point to, and now he's an embarrassment that ran the ball very well. That's a very different role in the teams history, and I'd like to believe we've had a lot of guys that have a greater net impact in creating a proud franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Obviously they should take OJ down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I've already said my piece about how every day that its up there it's a continued endorsement of the man, whether you want to see that or not. It's embarrassing for the community to keep it up. If you want to drool over his on the field accomplishments, keep his pristine framed jersey in your man cave. Then you can give your reasoning about how you're just honoring the yards he accrued anytime you have someone over. New idea for the Wall, though: Replace it with "The Electric Company." Yeah, Joe is up there, but O-Lines as a unit rarely get the credit they deserve, despite being a huge factor in overall success. At this point, they should be how the team remembers that period. Edited January 10, 2015 by LA Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think they should have OJ letter opener day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 If I was the new owner not only would the name be gone but I would remove his name from all Bills records. Guy decapiated 2 people including the mother of his kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts