Joaquin1119 Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Double-jeopardy is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Joaquin1119 said: Double-jeopardy is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. we got that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I'm not arguing . Just a discussion. I don't care if it's up there or not. The wall is " what it is" to use a tired expression. The best Bills ever... on the football field. Some maybe off it as well, but not all. Definitely on it though. Nothing more. It's not a moral judgement on these players. If the Bills want it taken down they'll do so. Seems silly to pretend he never existed as some sort of claim to moral superiority , but we will see. I get that you aren’t strongly advocating here- and are just discussing... but there are fans that do strongly advocate for keeping him up. Taking him down isnt pretending he didnt exist. It’s saying we aren’t going to honor him. Very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Mr. WEO said: If we are just discussing, what if OJ had confessed to throwing games while betting on opponents? Does his name stay up still? The exact opposite of say, Pete Rose? Not in my book. A great football player always tries their best to win the game, not the bet. So throwing games automatically makes you not great. Very good may be arguable. But not great. Now if he bet ON the Bills to win and gave maximum effort to win all the time? Keep it up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: If we are just discussing, what if OJ had confessed to throwing games while betting on opponents? Does his name stay up still? Then he can burn in hell. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, NoSaint said: I get that you aren’t strongly advocating here- and are just discussing... but there are fans that do strongly advocate for keeping him up. Taking him down isnt pretending he didnt exist. It’s saying we aren’t going to honor him. Very different things. I disagree . It's pretending something never existed in order to claim some sort of moral superiority . I just think it's silly. Just take all the names down then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: The exact opposite of say, Pete Rose? Not in my book. A great football player always tries their best to win the game, not the bet. So throwing games automatically makes you not great. Very good may be arguable. But not great. Now if he bet ON the Bills to win and gave maximum effort to win all the time? Keep it up there. So, throw games, take him down. Butcher the mother of your children and a stranger, keep him up. That was easier than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Marv's Neighbor said: As Chris Rock said, "OJ did it, but I understand!" Other than that, move on, nothing new to see here. What do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: So, throw games, take him down. Butcher the mother of your children and a stranger, keep him up. That was easier than I thought. I explained why. It's not a moral judgement. Strictly football . Nothing difficult about it . You expected something else? Edited March 12, 2018 by Boatdrinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said: What do you understand? It was part of Chris Rock’s bit where the punch line was “but I understand” (why OJ did it). Edited March 12, 2018 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I explained why. It's not a moral judgement. Strictly football But his achievements are record breaking. He was the best ever in a Bills uniform. He did all that on the field no? So what if he took a few plays off every now and then from being "great" so he could win a few bets. Sounds like you're making a moral judgement... Edited March 12, 2018 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Mr. WEO said: But his achievements are record breaking. He was the best ever in a Bills uniform. He did all that on the field no? So what if he played off every now and then from being "great" so he could win a few bets. Sounds like you're making a moral judgement... Nope. Just on if he meets the criteria of giving maximum effort all the time. Like a great football player would. If you don't , you're not entirely great . It's all about football. Like I said, don't care if he bet on the Bills to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: I explained why. It's not a moral judgement. Strictly football . Nothing difficult about it But nothing about weo’s hypothetical changed a single yard gained or td scored on his on field resume. It would be the same the day before and the day after that news came out. Would he suddenly not be one of our top 3 most talented/accomplished players? So morality sneaks in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: Nope. Just on if he meets the criteria of giving maximum effort all the time. Like a great football player would. If you don't , you're not entirely great . It's all about football. Like I said, don't care if he bet on the Bills to win. So every player on the wall never took a play off, even for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: Nope. Just on if he meets the criteria of giving maximum effort all the time. Like a great football player would. If you don't , you're not entirely great . It's all about football. Like I said, don't care if he bet on the Bills to win. So if we found out he liked to party too hard on Saturday night and played some games seriously hungover and not giving the team 100% does it change his greatness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, NoSaint said: But nothing about weo’s hypothetical changed a single yard gained or td scored on his on field resume. It would be the same the day before and the day after that news came out. Would he suddenly not be one of our top 3 most talented/accomplished players? So morality sneaks in there somewhere. Not morality , that's a stretch. If one must give maximum effort to win to be great , one must always try to win the game. Deliberately losing makes one not great. It's football criteria only. Call it moral if you must but it isn't . Just football criteria. It doesn't change the records, but falls short of the " great" criteria. If you think that makes one morally superior than enjoy! I don't know what else to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, GrizzReaper said: Really? Hmm I doubt that charge carries the maximum punishment murder does though. Death by hot oil maybe idk Yes, really. It'd be a stretch of the law, but not completely unheard of. And the sentence is up to life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: So every player on the wall never took a play off, even for free? Throwing games and taking a play off here and there are the same then? What if Bruce Smith is winded and goes half speed on a play on the last drive. Then goes full bore two plays later and strip sacks Elway for the win? Is he not great? Deliberately losing football games doesn't meet the criteria for great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Not morality , that's a stretch. If one must give maximum effort to win to be great , one must always try to win the game. Deliberately losing makes one not great. It's football criteria only. Call it moral if you must but it isn't . Just football criteria. It doesn't change the records, but falls short of the " great" criteria. If you think that makes one morally superior than enjoy! I don't know what else to tell you. Ok what iff his actions didn't affect the win, but just the point spread. In other words, the Bills still won, but, when he could, his play altered the spread so they didn't cover. 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Throwing games and taking a play off here and there are the same then? What if Bruce Smith is winded and goes half speed on a play on the last drive. Then goes full bore two plays later and strip sacks Elway for the win? Is he not great? Deliberately losing football games doesn't meet the criteria for great. you said the criteria was full effort all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, NoSaint said: So if we found out he liked to party too hard on Saturday night and played some games seriously hungover and not giving the team 100% does it change his greatness? Now you're picking nits. 100% effort of what he's capable of while hung over that game then. What silliness. Deliberately losing is a DQ for being a " great " player. 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: Ok what iff his actions didn't affect the win, but just the point spread. In other words, the Bills still won, but, when he could, his play altered the spread so they didn't cover. you said the criteria was full effort all the time Aha! So obviously no player is qualified for the wall then! Take the whole thing down. It's silliness really. Does anyone mean it when they say a guy " never " took a play off? Heck KW probably took plays off. I'm sure he did. As sure as I was that OJ was the killer... even BEFORE this interview aired. Just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Now you're picking nits. 100% effort of what he's capable of while hung over that game then. What silliness. Deliberately losing is a DQ for being a " great " player. Aha! So obviously no player is qualified for the wall then! Take the whole thing down. It's silliness really. Does anyone mean it when they say a guy " never " took a play off? Heck KW probably took plays off. I'm sure he did. As sure as I was that OJ was the killer... even BEFORE this interview aired. Just like everyone else. OK so full effort all the time is not a criteria after all. Justing to get it straight. How about playing to win, but also to alter the spread so the Bills don't cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzReaper Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes, really. It'd be a stretch of the law, but not completely unheard of. And the sentence is up to life in prison. Wow that's crazy... I had better stop violating my wife's civil rights asap then. Thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I disagree . It's pretending something never existed in order to claim some sort of moral superiority . I just think it's silly. Just take all the names down then. Were Cookie Gilchrist’s accomplishments somehow diminished or forgotten until after his death because of the pissing contest with Ralph? OJ’s accomplishments on the field will not be forgotten just because the person is no longer worthy of ceremonial recognition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, Mr. WEO said: OK so full effort all the time is not a criteria after all. Justing to get it straight. How about playing to win, but also to alter the spread so the Bills don't cover? What is the point of this exercise ? You must play to win the game all the time. Spin it however you like. If you think football walls and halls of fame are there for moral reasons as well as football just do away with them then. Doesn't bother me either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: OK so full effort all the time is not a criteria after all. Justing to get it straight. How about playing to win, but also to alter the spread so the Bills don't cover? His easy out is simply saying that he poorly argued that his criteria is solely football character and not character as a whole. Which, so be it.... but I think as fans we should expect more from the team than having this guy on the wall tomorrow. I won’t lose a wink of sleep making that judgement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzReaper Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, NoSaint said: So if we found out he liked to party too hard on Saturday night and played some games seriously hungover and not giving the team 100% does it change his greatness? Wait when did the topic switch to Jimbo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Just now, transient said: Were Cookie Gilchrist’s accomplishments somehow diminished or forgotten until after his death because of the pissing contest with Ralph? OJ’s accomplishments on the field will not be forgotten just because the person is no longer worthy of ceremonial recognition. Who cares if they are forgotten or not? But pretending he never existed by by removing the name is just silly to me. 1 minute ago, NoSaint said: His easy out is simply saying that he poorly argued that his criteria is solely football character and not character as a whole. Which, so be it.... but I think as fans we should expect more from the team than having this guy on the wall tomorrow. I won’t lose a wink of sleep making that judgement. Neither will I . Enjoy your moral superiority for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: What is the point of this exercise ? You must play to win the game all the time. Spin it however you like. If you think football walls and halls of fame are there for moral reasons as well as football just do away with them then. Doesn't bother me either way. I'm just trying to figure out what your criteria are. They seem to be changing with each question I ask. Just answer my question. 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Who cares if they are forgotten or not? But pretending he never existed by by removing the name is just silly to me. Neither will I . Enjoy your moral superiority for the day. Taking it down is not equal to "pretending he never existed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: What is the point of this exercise ? You must play to win the game all the time. Spin it however you like. If you think football walls and halls of fame are there for moral reasons as well as football just do away with them then. Doesn't bother me either way. Its an arbitrary wall about contributions to the team. It can extend to administrative positions. At some point OJ has crossed the line where the attention he has brought the team outweighs being real fast. That doesn’t mean he’s no longer a part of our history but that he’s no longer one of the top handful of guys that exemplify the best of the bills organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: Who cares if they are forgotten or not? But pretending he never existed by by removing the name is just silly to me. There are only 31 names on that wall. Pretty sure there were more than 31 players in the history of the organization. Does the absence of their names invalidate their existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: It was part of Chris Rock’s bit where the punch line was “but I understand” (why OJ did it). I'm familiar with the bit. I'm just wondering what he understands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Arkady Renko said: I'm familiar with the bit. I'm just wondering what he understands. I think it’s more tongue in cheek because “everyone knows” wives can be pains in the asss sometimes. Edited March 12, 2018 by JaCrispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, transient said: There are only 31 names on that wall. Pretty sure there were more than 31 players in the history of the organization. Does the absence of their names invalidate their existence? I think this conversation gets especially muddied with the confederate statues issues going on... Ive noticed some tone shift in the “keep him up” crowd the last few years, and more of the erasing history sneaking in alongside “its only football in a vacuum and you can’t look at anything else.” I suspect there’s a real worry of give an inch and they take a mile for some on that side of the argument... i would be genuinely curious about what would happen if in tonight’s interview oj said “oh I hated buffalo- that place was the worst.” As hypotheticals go I think that would’ve lost him more defenders than his actual “hypothetical” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 If OJ had had a better QB while in Buffalo, his life would never have taken the tragic path it did. There, I had to say it before somebody else did. I can take my tongue out of my cheek now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, NoSaint said: Its an arbitrary wall about contributions to the team. It can extend to administrative positions. At some point OJ has crossed the line where the attention he has brought the team outweighs being real fast. That doesn’t mean he’s no longer a part of our history but that he’s no longer one of the top handful of guys that exemplify the best of the bills organization. I know what the wall is. You've managed to convince yourself of OJs status on the wall. My opinion hasn't changed at all. If anyone's has it just seems silly to me. Everyone knew the guy did it. Maybe they were clinging to some false hope that he didn't but I doubt it. Taking it down now seems rather foolish. If it were to come down it should have years ago. Depending on ones criteria of course. Mine's just about football. But I don't control the wall and who's name is on it. Edited March 12, 2018 by Boatdrinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joaquin1119 Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Lock this topic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I know what the wall is. You've managed to convince yourself of OJs status on the wall. My opinion hasn't changed at all. If anyone's has it just seems silly to me. Everyone knew the guy did it. Maybe they were clinging to some false hope that he didn't but I doubt it. Taking it down now seems rather foolish. If it were to come down it should have years ago. Depending on ones criteria of course. Mine's just about football. But I don't control the wall and who's name is on it. What if he kills again? His new girlfriends? His kids? What if he kills all of them and Terry Pegula? Stills stays up there? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TtownBillsFan Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Fadingpain said: He's on the wall for his football accomplishments, which have nothing to do with him being a murderer. He's a top 3 all-time Buffalo Bill, whether you think he's a nice guy or not. And you're a piece of **** if you think he should remain on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadLandsMeanie Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 39 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I know what the wall is. You've managed to convince yourself of OJs status on the wall. My opinion hasn't changed at all. If anyone's has it just seems silly to me. Everyone knew the guy did it. Maybe they were clinging to some false hope that he didn't but I doubt it. Taking it down now seems rather foolish. If it were to come down it should have years ago. Depending on ones criteria of course. Mine's just about football. But I don't control the wall and who's name is on it. Maybe they could compromise by just having some blood spatter dripping off of his name up there? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said: Maybe they could compromise by just having some blood spatter dripping off of his name up there? Recontextualize it- that was big in the 60 minutes piece on confederate statues that ran at the same time. Definite possibility here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts