Take Simpson's Name Down

[vorpma]

He's on there for what he did on the field and he was found not guilty of murder. No argument

BS! The wall encompasses what a player did on the field and off!

OJ is a scumbag and almost certainly a double murderer.

 

He's not on the wall of fame for civic virtue; he's there because he is arguably the greatest Buffalo Bill of all time.

 

Keep his name on the wall.

You can't conveniently change history simply because you don't like someone.

 

His football accomplishments are what they are, and they aren't changing.

 

If you remove his name from the wall, take the whole wall down too.

BS!!!! With this post you are part of the problem my friend!

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

Is there any sort of "mission statement" about what the wall means? I know the HOF has standards that specifically mention that it's for their football accomplishments.

[NoSaint]

still not seeing many replies from the "its about football only" crowd.

 

I am still curious if there is literally nothing a player could do off the field to change that opinion, or where the line would fall?

Is there any sort of "mission statement" about what the wall means? I know the HOF has standards that specifically mention that it's for their football accomplishments.

the closest i see is from the bills website, and on the wall of fame page it has

The Buffalo Bills Wall of Fame was created in 1980 to honor former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history. To be eligible for induction, an individual must have played with the Bills for at least three years and be retired from professional football. Also eligible are other individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the Bills, including administrators and coaches. Selections are made by a distinguished panel composed of club personnel and media members.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/history/wall-of-fame.html

open to interpretation as his on field play is a big part of the teams history, but his later actions are hard to separate for many and by having him on the wall it intermingles a bit in my opinion. Edited January 9, 2015 by NoSaint

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

still not seeing many replies from the "its about football only" crowd.

 

I am still curious if there is literally nothing a player could do off the field to change that opinion, or where the line would fall?

the closest i see is from the bills website, and on the wall of fame page it has open to interpretation as his on field play is a big part of the teams history, but his later actions are hard to separate for many and by having him on the wall it intermingles a bit in my opinion.

You can't deny that by those specifications, and certainly at the time that he was put up there, he does fit the qualificaions. I say why make a big stink about it? Leave it up there, and when/if we get a new stadium, just quietly don't put it back.

[Hammered a Lot]

It continues to amaze me how people can trivialize a double-murder and put it into the "did a bad thing" category.

 

I believe in separating sports from real life ... but for God's sake, you don't choose the sports accomplishments over the double murder.

 

It's a societal flaw in which the importance of sports superiority trumps the importance of character.

 

it's why when star high school athletes get caught doing things wrong - parents, teachers and administrators look the other way ... because winning is more important than teaching a life lesson.

 

Winning is more important than doing the right thing. That is a problem.

How do you feel about former player cheating on his wife? Not very good character. So should his name be removed from the wall also?

[vorpma]

How do you feel about former player cheating on his wife? Not very good character. So should his name be removed from the wall also?

Are you serious?

[NoSaint]

You can't deny that by those specifications, and certainly at the time that he was put up there, he does fit the qualificaions. I say why make a big stink about it? Leave it up there, and when/if we get a new stadium, just quietly don't put it back.

its a sports team wall of fame - you can do whatever you want.....

 

and even by the standards of "contribution to team history" i think "was very good.... but had an incredibly checkered life off the field" are things you cant totally separate. His infamy at this point is far less his play than his criminal incidents and that becomes a part of the narrative/history.

How do you feel about former player cheating on his wife? Not very good character. So should his name be removed from the wall also?

if you are taking the speeding tickets and jay walking approach, ill take the terrorist that sets off a bomb at the stadium hypothetical ---- i think we can agree that there is a line somewhere between those two incidents that would warrant keeping him off the wall of fame. no? ive asked it a few times and no one has replied "no, there is literally nothing he could do to be removed" but no one has said "fair enough, id draw the line somewhere out there that he hasnt crossed" either Edited January 9, 2015 by NoSaint

[vorpma]

its a sports team wall of fame - you can do whatever you want.....

 

and even by the standards of "contribution to team history" i think "was very good.... but had an incredibly checkered life off the field" are things you can totally separate. His infamy at this point is far less his play than his criminal incidents and that becomes a part of the narrative/history.

 

if you are taking the speeding tickets and jay walking approach, ill take the terrorist that sets off a bomb at the stadium hypothetical ---- i think we can agree that there is a line somewhere between those two incidents that would warrant keeping him off the wall of fame. no? ive asked it a few times and no one has replied "no, there is literally nothing he could do to be removed" but no one has said "fair enough, id draw the line somewhere out there that he hasnt crossed" either

This is utter nonsense, what the hell are you saying?

[NoSaint]

This is utter nonsense, what the hell are you saying?

hammered used the example that its a slippery slope to cheating spouses and minor things banning you, i said its just as nonsensical when you go extreme the other way and asked where the line is, or if he really thinks there is no conduct standard

 

i also think if its as broad as "contributions to the teams history" while playing is obviously central, when a guys pop culture legacy overwhelms his on field accomplishments, it effects his contribution to the history. the bills didnt just employ oj simpson great runner, the bills employed oj simpson convicted felon, likely murderer, and sociopath that was a great runner. i think its a tough spot to separate his off field legacy at this point.

Edited January 9, 2015 by NoSaint

[QuoteTheRaven83]

If Pete Rose isn't allowed to be honored in the HOF for gambling then why should we honor OJ when he murdered someone?

Edited January 9, 2015 by QuoteTheRaven83

[VADC Bills]

If Pete Rose isn't allowed to be honored in the HOF for gambling then why should we honor OJ when he murdered someone?

Because gambling can ruin the integrity of any sport.

From a sports sense the two are totally different when it comes to impact of the game.

A person should be judged by his accomplishments when they were in the game.

Edited January 9, 2015 by VADC Bills

[Gugny]

Please read the original post. This isn't a Hall of Fame discussion (certainly not a MLB HOF discussion). The question isn't whether he should be removed from Canton; the Pegulas have no say in that matter.

 

 

The question is strictly regarding the Wall in Orchard Park ... which the Pegulas own.

[What a Tuel]

still not seeing many replies from the "its about football only" crowd.

 

I am still curious if there is literally nothing a player could do off the field to change that opinion, or where the line would fall?

the closest i see is from the bills website, and on the wall of fame page it has open to interpretation as his on field play is a big part of the teams history, but his later actions are hard to separate for many and by having him on the wall it intermingles a bit in my opinion.

 

Hard to separate by for many doesn't change the fact that the stated mission of the wall "honors former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history."

 

I don't think it is the peoples job to rewrite history because they hate the guy for what he did more than a decade later.

 

I wasn't alive back then, but would I be a bad person for thinking "What a running back OJ Simpson was, he was fantastic!" Should I feel guilty for that or something?

[NoSaint]

 

Hard to separate by for many doesn't change the fact that the stated mission of the wall "honors former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history."

 

I don't think it is the peoples job to rewrite history because they hate the guy for what he did more than a decade later.

 

I wasn't alive back then, but would I be a bad person for thinking "What a running back OJ Simpson was, he was fantastic!" Should I feel guilty for that or something?

Nope. There's all kinds of space between giving him the highest honor our team gives, and having to pretend he never existed, or feel guilty he was a bill.

 

 

He ran the ball really well. many here probably told their sons about him but wouldn't buy an Oj jersey for themselves or that son. No ones saying we burn the tapes and erase the record books. We are saying that his spot as the most iconic of bills players had changed dramatically as his story continues to be written

 

He's a piece of our history, but what he means to the franchise and buffalo folk lore has changed through the years. It's not re-writing the past, it's acknowledging that the icon that is Oj Simpson is still evolving and that means his role in the bills history is not written in stone.

 

So you are going on record with nothing he did outside 3 hours those hundred or so Sunday's could ever effect his status up there?

Edited January 10, 2015 by NoSaint

[What a Tuel]

Nope. There's all kinds of space between giving him the highest honor our team gives, and having to pretend he never existed, or feel guilty he was a bill.

 

 

He ran the ball really well. many here probably told their sons about him but wouldn't buy an Oj jersey for themselves or that son. No ones saying we burn the tapes and erase the record books. We are saying that his spot as the most iconic of bills players had changed dramatically as his story continues to be written

 

He's a piece of our history, but what he means to the franchise and buffalo folk lore has changed through the years. It's not re-writing the past, it's acknowledging that the icon that is Oj Simpson is still evolving and that means his role in the bills history is not written in stone.

 

So you are going on record with nothing he did outside 3 hours those hundred or so Sunday's could ever effect his status up there?

 

If the Bills Organization cannot honor OJ Simpson accomplishments, and give him what he deserves which is a place on the wall, (I think we can agree his football play puts him on that wall easily) because it would be too shameful given his actions. Then why would it also not be shameful for me to talk about OJ Simpson and his great football moments? By talking about his accomplishments, I am also honoring him and his talent.

 

Are we really at the point where we are saying the Bills Organization should pretend OJ Simpson wouldn't qualify for the wall, and wasn't good enough to be on it? How does that help anyone? I'm still talking about how good he was, you are still talking about how good he was. Is it just out of spite? Do we think by falsely and inaccurately taking down his name, we are doing someone a favor? Getting some justice? What? I don't get it other than "we don't like him, he did bad things, I don't want to see his name".

[NoSaint]

 

If the Bills Organization cannot honor OJ Simpson accomplishments, and give him what he deserves which is a place on the wall, (I think we can agree his football play puts him on that wall easily) because it would be too shameful given his actions. Then why would it also not be shameful for me to talk about OJ Simpson and his great football moments? By talking about his accomplishments, I am also honoring him and his talent.

 

Are we really at the point where we are saying the Bills Organization should pretend OJ Simpson wouldn't qualify for the wall, and wasn't good enough to be on it? How does that help anyone? I'm still talking about how good he was, you are still talking about how good he was. Is it just out of spite? Do we think by falsely and inaccurately taking down his name, we are doing someone a favor? Getting some justice? What? I don't get it other than "we don't like him, he did bad things, I don't want to see his name".

There's a huge gap between ignoring his accomplishments on the field/feeling shame he was a productive player for your team and bestowing upon him the highest public honor the team can and holding him up as your finest example of what a buffalo bill is for everyone that walks into the stadium.

 

He can be all over the record books without being a public face of the franchise is essentially what I'm saying.

 

Rewriting history and acknowledging its s living narrative are two very different things. To pretend he was a bad running back or ever existed is silly. To see that as an international icon his story continues to effect his role in the organizations history is far from a stretch. The bills aren't selling juice memorabilia at the team store today I bet - as a result of his changing role in their history. His legacy as a bill has been impacted by his actions.

 

You've made your argument a few times but sidestepped the very direct: is there literally nothing a wall of fame caliber player could do off the field to make you say it's an honor the team should not bestow? I could come up with the most heinous, graphic, offensive and personally revolting things possible, and you would point to his highlight reel as a rebuttal?

[purple haze]

With Simpson's name on the back?

 

GO BILLS!!!

Yes his name was on the back. But even if his name wasn't on the back, if one is wearing a Bills #32 jersey everybody knows who it is.

Edited January 10, 2015 by purple haze

[What a Tuel]

There's a huge gap between ignoring his accomplishments on the field/feeling shame he was a productive player for your team and bestowing upon him the highest public honor the team can and holding him up as your finest example of what a buffalo bill is for everyone that walks into the stadium.

 

He can be all over the record books without being a public face of the franchise is essentially what I'm saying.

 

Rewriting history and acknowledging its s living narrative are two very different things. To pretend he was a bad running back or ever existed is silly. To see that as an international icon his story continues to effect his role in the organizations history is far from a stretch. The bills aren't selling juice memorabilia at the team store today I bet - as a result of his changing role in their history. His legacy as a bill has been impacted by his actions.

 

You've made your argument a few times but sidestepped the very direct: is there literally nothing a wall of fame caliber player could do off the field to make you say it's an honor the team should not bestow? I could come up with the most heinous, graphic, offensive and personally revolting things possible, and you would point to his highlight reel as a rebuttal?

 

A big part of it is that his name went up before he did what he did. Would his name have went up after? Probably not. I am just not a fan of altering history because it would make people feel more comfortable. The facts are that he was an outstanding football player who deserved to be on that wall, and was put on it long before the white bronco. Why should a future event change an honor that predates it?

 

Honestly though I think it is up to the owners. But I won't give them crap whatever they decide. If anything, I think the wall loses a bit of it's integrity if it takes him off, but really it is up to the owners of the organization or better yet, the same panel that put him up there if possible.

 

I don't think people should be putting pressure on them to take it down because they can't separate his actions from his playing time. That is up to the organization. If Mr. Pegula can't separate OJ's actions from his play on the field, and he would feel more comfortable taking it down then fine. I also don't think we should all be offended or look at it as a black eye on the organization if he leaves it up.

 

Either way it is a way for the Bills Organization to "honor former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history."

 

Fans get heckled by other Bills fans for wearing OJ Jerseys. Do you think people should be ashamed to wear those jerseys?

Edited January 10, 2015 by What a Tuel

[QuoteTheRaven83]

Because gambling can ruin the integrity of any sport.

From a sports sense the two are totally different when it comes to impact of the game.

A person should be judged by his accomplishments when they were in the game.

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.

Edited January 10, 2015 by QuoteTheRaven83

[NoSaint]

 

A big part of it is that his name went up before he did what he did. Would his name have went up after? Probably not. I am just not a fan of altering history because it would make people feel more comfortable. The facts are that he was an outstanding football player who deserved to be on that wall, and was put on it long before the white bronco. Why should a future event change an honor that predates it?

 

Honestly though I think it is up to the owners. But I won't give them crap whatever they decide. If anything, I think the wall loses a bit of it's integrity if it takes him off, but really it is up to the owners of the organization or better yet, the same panel that put him up there if possible.

 

I don't think people should be putting pressure on them to take it down because they can't separate his actions from his playing time. That is up to the organization. If Mr. Pegula can't separate OJ's actions from his play on the field, and he would feel more comfortable taking it down then fine. I also don't think we should all be offended or look at it as a black eye on the organization if he leaves it up.

 

Either way it is a way for the Bills Organization to "honor former players, administrators and coaches who have played significant roles in the teams history."

 

Fans get heckled by other Bills fans for wearing OJ Jerseys. Do you think people should be ashamed to wear those jerseys?

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.

Edited January 10, 2015 by NoSaint

[VADC Bills]

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

[BUNCH OF MULARKEY]

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

[HalftimeAdjustment]

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.

[What a Tuel]

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

[BRH]

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.

[NoSaint]

 

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.

[dayman]

Obviously they should take OJ down.

[LA Grant]

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

[RealityCheck]

I think they should have OJ letter opener day.

[TH3]

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.