Ralph isn't cheap!

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

You are like a little child. All you try to do is pick little fights. So tough guy, you never answered my post last week...Why didnt we resign nate clements and antoine wilfield, oh and that guy named pat williams?...Maybe, just MAYBE because umm Ralph is cheap. He didnt want to pay top dollar. Ever since winfield and pat left, they both have been the best two players at their position in the game. If Ralph wasnt cheap, they would still be here. And our defense wouldnt be so bad. Ever since pat left, our defense has **** the bed. Maybe if he was resigned by the cheap owner, our running defense would be much much much better. Maybe if your little brain can remember, our run defense was in the top five every year we had pat in the middle of the d line. And Winfield was and still is the best tackling corner in the game. The only reason them two were let go is plain and simple, Ralph did not want to pay them. Its been how many years since they have been gone? And THEY ARE STILL DOMINATING THEIR POSITIONS. Maybe those are some facts to back up my opnion tough guy.

 

Have you by any chance paid any attention to the bills for the past ten years? Ralph has not once hired a top notch coach, and has not once signed a big name play making player. He signs players who are desperate and who are certaintly no longer in their prime. Like T.O, and Troy Vincent, and Kawika Mitchell (who is always hurt). I understand that Ralph does spend some money, like resigning lee evans, and aaron schobel. But instead of going after big name free agents every year, he signs no names to a lot of money.

 

Why would you ask me to explain why we didn't resign Clements, when you don't think we should have? Here's your post:

 

"And im glad we got rid of clements, the 49ers overpaid him and he is not the same lock down corner as he was when he was with the bills."

 

But then earlier you said this:

 

"I just think Ralph can do much more to help this team. Look at Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield. Two great corners, and Ralph wouldnt resign them. Why? Because they were too much money. Dont get me wrong, terrence mcgee and leodis mckelvin are great and i love them way more than nate and antoine but come on. At the time they were the best cornerback duo in the game and he wouldnt resign them. Thats being cheap."

 

You're saying you love Mcgee and McKelvin more than Winfield and Clements. Which is it? You define contradiction.

[Mr. WEO]

Why would you ask me to explain why we didn't resign Clements, when you don't think we should have? Here's your post:

 

"And im glad we got rid of clements, the 49ers overpaid him and he is not the same lock down corner as he was when he was with the bills."

 

But then earlier you said this:

 

"I just think Ralph can do much more to help this team. Look at Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield. Two great corners, and Ralph wouldnt resign them. Why? Because they were too much money. Dont get me wrong, terrence mcgee and leodis mckelvin are great and i love them way more than nate and antoine but come on. At the time they were the best cornerback duo in the game and he wouldnt resign them. Thats being cheap."

 

You're saying you love Mcgee and McKelvin more than Winfield and Clements. Which is it? You define contradiction.

Can't fault Ralphus for not resigning either one of those two---totally overrated, easily replaced.

[billsfreak]

I have never criticized Ralph for hiring Donahoe. I thought it was a good hire. It didn't work out for a variety of reasons. Bringing in Levy, who was for the most part not involved in the league for five years, was not only a terrible hire it was outright peculiar.

 

 

 

I do think that Nix and Gailey are good hires. On the other hand I also believe that the Bills are years away from being a serious team.

Levy was brought in for a few reasons that weren't that peculiar. He came cheap like all coaches that Ralph hires do, with the exception of Knox maybe. Polian brought him in because he knew Levy from working with him in the CFL, in fact I believe that Levy got him hired up there and kinda started his GM career. That close relationship was the reason that Polian was Marv's presenter in Canton-which makes more sense than Chris Berman I suppose.

[gobills123]

Why would you ask me to explain why we didn't resign Clements, when you don't think we should have? Here's your post:

 

"And im glad we got rid of clements, the 49ers overpaid him and he is not the same lock down corner as he was when he was with the bills."

 

But then earlier you said this:

 

"I just think Ralph can do much more to help this team. Look at Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield. Two great corners, and Ralph wouldnt resign them. Why? Because they were too much money. Dont get me wrong, terrence mcgee and leodis mckelvin are great and i love them way more than nate and antoine but come on. At the time they were the best cornerback duo in the game and he wouldnt resign them. Thats being cheap."

 

You're saying you love Mcgee and McKelvin more than Winfield and Clements. Which is it? You define contradiction.

 

In my ealier post i said that nate and winfield were the best corner duo in the league. Which they damn well were. However, his time in san fran has proved that he is overrated. But when he was in buffalo he was a great corner. And ralph didnt resign him because he was too cheap and didnt want to spend large money. But now i am saying that i would much rather have terrence and leodis anyway so im glad ralph was too cheap. But in this latest post all i said about nate is that we didnt resign him because ralph was too cheap. In the last post i never said that i wish he was still here. It was all about winfield and pat. So just answer the question that you have been avoiding for two weeks now...why didnt we resign winfield and pat?

[gobills123]

Can't fault Ralphus for not resigning either one of those two---totally overrated, easily replaced.

 

Nate was very easily replaced, however i dont think winfield is. Winfield is a great cover guy and a tremendous tackler. Winfield is not overrated at all, he was and still is in the top five corners in the nfl. He sticks to the receivers like glue, and when he does get beat he tackles them better than any corner in the league. He is the best corner tackler in the league.

[sllib olaffub]

You know, I've heard all the talk about how lucky we should feel to have a team here, about how Ralph does spend... and a few things occurred to me: So, if we don't support the team, then the team packs up and moves? Is that it? We aren't supporting the team because it hasn't seen the playoffs in ten years. In today's NFL, you've got to be totally devoid of any intention of trying to win if you can go that long without winning. But, the fans here still are some of the best fans in the NFL. We still support our team despite the obvious lack of interest by it's owner to make this team a powerhouse. Yeah, we hear the realities of the finances, that he can spend X amount of money, and that's it. It looks like he brings in enough guys to field a team that won't fall on their asses, not that he's spending money to build a real champion. When's the last time he demanded his GM get him a real top end QB - no excuses? Or, how about overpaying, if need be, to make the playoffs for the fans. The alternative is to move. But there he'd have to go out and spend - on a new facility (why not do it here?) and he'd have to fill the roster with guys that'll win - big name QB's, Big playmaking WR's and RB's and a good defense. He'd have to give the fans something they believe in and would support. AND HERE'S THE KICKER! ONCE THE FANS ARE HOOKED ON SUPPORTING THE TEAM, ONCE THEY ARE USED TO HAVING THEIR FRANCHISE, THEIR OVER-COFFEE TEAM TALK, THEIR OWN TEAM TO ROOT FOR, then the owner can sit back and give them anything. He doesn't have to make it great anymore, doesn't have to field a winner, or make sure there's enough of the right talent there to win, because he's got 'em hooked. If they complain, then - "hey, you're lucky to have one of only 32 teams in the NFL. We'll move..."

The owners get the fans hooked, and once they are, they cease having to actually build a champion. The money comes either way.

We need an owner who wants to win first and above all else - he needs to demand the best guys, at whatever cost - not like Washington, needing the highest end F.A.'s just to have them, but, like in Buffalo, he should say, find the best QB and get him. Find a good LT and get him. They could've had McNiel and Brown, and they could've had Clausen. They could've had Tebow if they wanted him.

I'm willing to wait and see this year and next year's off season. I believe in Gailey and Nix - I think they've got the mentality that I have - the no nonsense, we are going to win attitude. It's just, our owner has let this team fall to ruin, slowly, and he's too proud and greedy to do anything to stop it. Yeah, he spends. But, he could admit we need such and such players, and spend the money to get them. There's a difference between that, and just spending the league average. He talks spending on a budget that equates not losing the profit he's set at getting. He could spend more on a winner, make better choices for the fans, and still make money.

[birdog1960]

You know, I've heard all the talk about how lucky we should feel to have a team here, about how Ralph does spend... and a few things occurred to me: So, if we don't support the team, then the team packs up and moves? Is that it? We aren't supporting the team because it hasn't seen the playoffs in ten years. In today's NFL, you've got to be totally devoid of any intention of trying to win if you can go that long without winning. But, the fans here still are some of the best fans in the NFL. We still support our team despite the obvious lack of interest by it's owner to make this team a powerhouse. Yeah, we hear the realities of the finances, that he can spend X amount of money, and that's it. It looks like he brings in enough guys to field a team that won't fall on their asses, not that he's spending money to build a real champion. When's the last time he demanded his GM get him a real top end QB - no excuses? Or, how about overpaying, if need be, to make the playoffs for the fans. The alternative is to move. But there he'd have to go out and spend - on a new facility (why not do it here?) and he'd have to fill the roster with guys that'll win - big name QB's, Big playmaking WR's and RB's and a good defense. He'd have to give the fans something they believe in and would support. AND HERE'S THE KICKER! ONCE THE FANS ARE HOOKED ON SUPPORTING THE TEAM, ONCE THEY ARE USED TO HAVING THEIR FRANCHISE, THEIR OVER-COFFEE TEAM TALK, THEIR OWN TEAM TO ROOT FOR, then the owner can sit back and give them anything. He doesn't have to make it great anymore, doesn't have to field a winner, or make sure there's enough of the right talent there to win, because he's got 'em hooked. If they complain, then - "hey, you're lucky to have one of only 32 teams in the NFL. We'll move..."

The owners get the fans hooked, and once they are, they cease having to actually build a champion. The money comes either way.

We need an owner who wants to win first and above all else - he needs to demand the best guys, at whatever cost - not like Washington, needing the highest end F.A.'s just to have them, but, like in Buffalo, he should say, find the best QB and get him. Find a good LT and get him. They could've had McNiel and Brown, and they could've had Clausen. They could've had Tebow if they wanted him.

I'm willing to wait and see this year and next year's off season. I believe in Gailey and Nix - I think they've got the mentality that I have - the no nonsense, we are going to win attitude. It's just, our owner has let this team fall to ruin, slowly, and he's too proud and greedy to do anything to stop it. Yeah, he spends. But, he could admit we need such and such players, and spend the money to get them. There's a difference between that, and just spending the league average. He talks spending on a budget that equates not losing the profit he's set at getting. He could spend more on a winner, make better choices for the fans, and still make money.

[Doc]

...He could spend more on a winner...

Like Dan Snyder?

[Mr. WEO]

Nate was very easily replaced, however i dont think winfield is. Winfield is a great cover guy and a tremendous tackler. Winfield is not overrated at all, he was and still is in the top five corners in the nfl. He sticks to the receivers like glue, and when he does get beat he tackles them better than any corner in the league. He is the best corner tackler in the league.

Winfield was hardly a "great cover guy"--covered in butter and jelly, maybe. Yeah, a great tackler, but you don't pay a CB to cover the run.

[Mr. WEO]

Like Dan Snyder?

Actually he is like Snyder--when both open up their wallets, they waste money in a spectacular fashion.

[Doc]

Actually he is like Snyder--when both open up their wallets, they waste money in a spectacular fashion.

Ralph has spent nowhere near as much as Snyder. You know that much.

[Mr. WEO]

Ralph has spent nowhere near as much as Snyder. You know that much.

Never said or even implied he did.

 

But hey, you've cut down another straw man!

[Sisyphean Bills]

Nate was very easily replaced, however i dont think winfield is. Winfield is a great cover guy and a tremendous tackler. Winfield is not overrated at all, he was and still is in the top five corners in the nfl. He sticks to the receivers like glue, and when he does get beat he tackles them better than any corner in the league. He is the best corner tackler in the league.

Winfield is undersized and his body is starting to fall apart. Top 5? No.

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

In my ealier post i said that nate and winfield were the best corner duo in the league. Which they damn well were. However, his time in san fran has proved that he is overrated. But when he was in buffalo he was a great corner. And ralph didnt resign him because he was too cheap and didnt want to spend large money. But now i am saying that i would much rather have terrence and leodis anyway so im glad ralph was too cheap. But in this latest post all i said about nate is that we didnt resign him because ralph was too cheap. In the last post i never said that i wish he was still here. It was all about winfield and pat. So just answer the question that you have been avoiding for two weeks now...why didnt we resign winfield and pat?

 

So every time we don't sign a player because he gets a ludicrous deal in free agency Ralph is cheap? Why can't it be that we made the correct decision, by not paying a player that isn't worth the money? See you look at things as all cheap, but there are in fact good decisions in there, and not signing Clements is one of them. You have a very weak argument.

 

Ok, this is the last post about this topic between us, because obviously we don't agree and never will. But dude you can't look at not signing Clements to that crazy deal the way you are. I thought it was a good decision then, and now it's proved itself to be. Gosh man you've got to find a way to be positive somewhere.

[gobills123]

So every time we don't sign a player because he gets a ludicrous deal in free agency Ralph is cheap? Why can't it be that we made the correct decision, by not paying a player that isn't worth the money? See you look at things as all cheap, but there are in fact good decisions in there, and not signing Clements is one of them. You have a very weak argument.

 

Ok, this is the last post about this topic between us, because obviously we don't agree and never will. But dude you can't look at not signing Clements to that crazy deal the way you are. I thought it was a good decision then, and now it's proved itself to be. Gosh man you've got to find a way to be positive somewhere.

 

I hear ya one hundred percent dude. I agree with you with the Nate Clements decision, At the time i was pissed, thinking why the hell wouldnt we resign him. But like you said, it turned out to be the right move because i think after watching his last few seasons, he is very overated. As for london fletcher and pat williams. Fletcher has been in the top five leading tacklers category in the past ten years, so i was pretty mad that we let him go too. But as i reflect on him, he never had any interceptions or never was a huge game changer playmaker. He was just a tackling machine. So just like clememts, it turned out the right move by not resigning them. With poz coming on strong and hopefully maybin too, as well as kawika, andra davis and antonio coleman out of auburn (if he makes the roster) i think linebacker will be a very good and deep position on our roster. And as for winfield, he is the same as fletcher...all he did was tackle tackle tackle, never had any interceptions or never was a game changing corner.

 

And to go with your last statement about being positive...dude ive never been more positive about a season then this one coming up. I mean last year i was so positive i thought for sure wed prove everyone wrong. But with the new staff, i think we are going to shock the league and all these bills haters. One week dude and training camp is here, billieve man. Time to BILLIEVE

[gobills123]

So every time we don't sign a player because he gets a ludicrous deal in free agency Ralph is cheap? Why can't it be that we made the correct decision, by not paying a player that isn't worth the money? See you look at things as all cheap, but there are in fact good decisions in there, and not signing Clements is one of them. You have a very weak argument.

 

Ok, this is the last post about this topic between us, because obviously we don't agree and never will. But dude you can't look at not signing Clements to that crazy deal the way you are. I thought it was a good decision then, and now it's proved itself to be. Gosh man you've got to find a way to be positive somewhere.

 

Just wondering your opinion on this one.....If schobel does decide to come back and play. on buffalobills.com they said that he would be playing linebacker. I dont get why he wouldnt stay at D end, and have poz, mitchell, maybin, and andra davis be the linebackers. And then we'd also have antonio coleman (if he makes the team) and nic harris too.

[Doc]

Never said or even implied he did

Oh. Really?

[Mr. WEO]

Oh. Really?

That Ralph spends as much as Snyder?

[Typical TBD Guy]

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/04/21/tom-cou...en-one-in-1979/

[Bob in STL]

I will once again make the point that Ralph Wilson, prior to the Polian Era, WAS in fact one of the cheapest owners in pro sports. Now he's just cheap with coaches and throws money around recklessly to marginally talented players.

 

Anyone care to dispute my post?

 

 

I don't dispute you at all. He was very cheap at times. Wilson always was and always will be a business man first and foremost. He was frugal in the 60's although he had the money to bail out Oakland and Boston and keep the AFL and his other buddies from going under. His allegiance was to the league first, then his franchise, then his staff, and lastly his players.

 

He was downright cheap in the 70's and ran a very erratic franchise. There are numerous examples of this, most of them I have posted on in the past.

 

His cheapness in the 70's carried into the 80's until he stumbled upon Bill Polian. Polian was a low priced, unknown GM that turned out to be a diamond in the rough. Polian started to do great things and he hung in there until he could not handle arguing with Ralph's accountant, Mr. Littman, any longer. The dispute over the contract to Cornelius Bennett was followed by the Littman's refusal to allow Polian to renegotiate Will Woolford's contract. You see, Polian knew what was going to happen once free agency went into effect and he was trying to renegotiate the core players in advance. Littman stopped him. Ralph sided with Littman, and Polian bailed. All of these stories about Polian and Ralph’s daughter not getting along are secondary to this issue.

 

Once the salary cap and free agency were established (something that Polian worked on with commissioner Tagliabue) Ralph initially had no problem spending to the cap and he enjoyed the fruits of NFL revenue sharing. However, he would never pay for an elite coaching staff or the other extras to help the franchise.

 

Erie county and New Your State taxpayers have funded upgrades to the stadium, the practice field, the luxury boxes, etc. To my knowledge Ralph has put $0 into the stadium that bears his name, even though his financial legacy will be far greater than his heirs can absorb.

 

Today he spends cash to cap only. In the decade of the 2000's he has changed coaches and GMs many times with no success as of yet. He spends less on salaries and bonuses than many teams, but not so much less as to prohibit being competitive. He spends much less on his coaching staff and front office personnel and this is where he fails to build a winning team.

 

As always Ralph remains loyal to his inner circle of business associates. He is loyal to the city of Buffalo too. He has kept the team in place for over 50 years. I do not understand why he has not taken steps to preserve the franchise after he moves on? Maybe he has and this is his secret legacy to be revealed after he is gone?