BeastMode54 Posted August 18, 2011 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
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 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!!
John from Riverside Posted August 18, 2011 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.
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted August 18, 2011 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
nucci Posted August 18, 2011 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.
LeviF Posted August 18, 2011 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.
clancynut Posted August 18, 2011 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
marauderswr80 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
bartshan-83 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 just more proof of wilson's continued high level of involvement in player decisions.....the results speak for themselves.
eme123 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
dcbillsfan13 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
Damian Posted August 18, 2011 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!
BuffaloWings Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Arthur Blank didn't want him either. Nor did probably about 25 other GMs.
KOKBILLS Posted August 18, 2011 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...
Doc Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 With all the hubbub over the Bills signing TO, signing Vick would have truly led to a media circus.
Like A Mofo Posted August 18, 2011 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.
eme123 Posted August 18, 2011 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.
eball Posted August 18, 2011 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.
Recommended Posts