K-9 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 I believe we had this discussion a couple years ago and it was pretty well accepted that RW didn't want to sign Vick at the time. Signing him was a potential public relations disaster and RW would have been well within his right to veto what his personnel men said at the time. This wasn't like RW interfering with a draft choice, etc. GO BILLS!!!
Scrappy Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Dog fighting was legal when Ralph was a youth / Civil war times.
T master 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. This is exactly the point !! It's one thing if Ralph & the team or coaches don't want to bring him in for obvious reasons but if the commissioner of the NFL & others are steering players away from a team that said player might be able to lift in the NFL rankings & wants to go to what's up with that ??? COULD IT BE A CONSPIRACY ????
BillsfaninFl Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 You guys have this all wrong. What really happened is this: Goddell didn't want Vick to come to Buffalo because he is from western New York and didn't want to corrupt the morals of this fine commmunity. Michael Vick wanted to come to Buffalo at first. But he didn't think that a truckload of dog food was a big enough signing bonus. Wilson was against signing Vick because he wasn't over the hill yet, and he didn't want to change Bills policy. The S.P.C.A, was for Vick coming to the area because Virginia's S.P.C.A. said he was an avid supporter. He took many of the large number of dogs they had for adoption. Brandon didn't try to sign him because when told he just came out of the "big house," he thought that meant Ohio State. We already had some recent defensive backs from there and he saw no reason to hire one to play a quarter of the way back. Dick Jauron wanted him, and if Vick signed he had plans to change his position to kick returner. Several fans hated him because his name reminded them of medicated cough drops. I asked around, and in spite of Michael's past, not a single canine was against him being reinstated or brought to Buffalo. O.J. was quoted as saying, "why would you want a dog killer in Buffalo?" Of course, now, Vick the lovable reformed citizen can throw out comments like that because he doesn't think anyone would be offended. Doesn't he realize that no one can top the Pittsburgh Steelers for offending people with stupid comments? Personally, I don't care if Jack the Ripper is signed. I just want to see players on the Bills squad that can help them win games. After the game, they can eat the opponents for all I care. I want more Ws.
transient Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 You guys have this all wrong. What really happened is this: Goddell didn't want Vick to come to Buffalo because he is from western New York and didn't want to corrupt the morals of this fine commmunity. Michael Vick wanted to come to Buffalo at first. But he didn't think that a truckload of dog food was a big enough signing bonus. Wilson was against signing Vick because he wasn't over the hill yet, and he didn't want to change Bills policy. The S.P.C.A, was for Vick coming to the area because Virginia's S.P.C.A. said he was an avid supporter. He took many of the large number of dogs they had for adoption. Brandon didn't try to sign him because when told he just came out of the "big house," he thought that meant Ohio State. We already had some recent defensive backs from there and he saw no reason to hire one to play a quarter of the way back. Dick Jauron wanted him, and if Vick signed he had plans to change his position to kick returner. Several fans hated him because his name reminded them of medicated cough drops. I asked around, and in spite of Michael's past, not a single canine was against him being reinstated or brought to Buffalo. O.J. was quoted as saying, "why would you want a dog killer in Buffalo?" Of course, now, Vick the lovable reformed citizen can throw out comments like that because he doesn't think anyone would be offended. Doesn't he realize that no one can top the Pittsburgh Steelers for offending people with stupid comments? Personally, I don't care if Jack the Ripper is signed. I just want to see players on the Bills squad that can help them win games. After the game, they can eat the opponents for all I care. I want more Ws. I think you just made the fans of two big ten rivals very angry.
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 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. But do you have a problem with Merriman? Who took roids? Should he had been banned?
NaPolian8693 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. Do you think guys that get DUIs should be banned from football? What if they beat the hell out of a woman? What is they stole a pack of gum in the 3rd grade? Where do you draw the line? Maybe we should let the legal system determine appropriate punishments, and not arbitrarily try to deny someone's right to work.
birdog1960 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 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. not surprising you find it inane when you entirely miss the point: it doesn't matter why he might have said no to vick, if he did as alleged, then it further supports his continued role as a meddler. and yes, i believe as do many others that wilson's meddling has much to do with the bills failure over most of 50+ years.
Smears 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. AMEN, well said.
disco Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Will be really interesting to see if Ralph or Mike Brown actually comment on this.
Punch Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 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. Graham's source is not with the Bills, according to a twitter comment posed to Jeremy White a few minutes ago.
Kiwi Bills fan Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 F Michael Vick per Tim Graham via Twitter. Even though people in football department did. Why should he have the say. Shouldn't the GM?
Doc Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Who DID want Vick back then? Just Philly and Cincy? That's 2 teams out of 29 (excluding Atlanta). So Ralph was like 29 other owners in not wanting him. Why is this news?
Kiwi Bills fan Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Try and not act so stupid. Please. But do you have a problem with Merriman? Who took roids? Should he had been banned?
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 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... Typical Vick thread. Racism trotted out by post #6.
birdog1960 Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Who DID want Vick back then? Just Philly and Cincy? That's 2 teams out of 29 (excluding Atlanta). So Ralph was like 29 other owners in not wanting him. Why is this news? supposedly there was "football' interest within the bills. so that would imply the true talent evaluators here wanted him or at least wanted to consider him. cinci and the bills were/are desperate teams. desperate times warrant desperate measures. philly, conversely, is just smart.
yall Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Yeah RW was a progressive 40 years ago, but now he's David Duke.
wnyBacker Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 of course, why would ralph want a dynamic winner at qb? if there is a cheaper alternative who cant play then ralph would be all over him
hondo in seattle Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 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... I think it's unfair to insinuate that Wilson is a racist. James Harris, who you mention, was the first black QB to begin an AFL or NFL season as the starting QB. Wilson was okay with a black QB before anyone else. Who knows if the report that Ralph didn't want Vick is true. But, if true, maybe Wilson just likes dogs. Maybe Wilson doesn't like felons. Maybe, like many people before last season, Ralph didn't think Vick was accurate enough to be a top flight NFL QB. Other than Vick, when have you heard that Wilson was against black QBs?
Recommended Posts