birdog1960 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Doesn't the fact that Ralph choose an accountant over a football man say it all? yes…and not just any football man. at least in the 70's he was forthright. he told the world in a sports illustrated article that buffalonian's would support a loser. more recently, he told the world and especially bills fans that the losing was unacceptable. that was a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 yes…and not just any football man. at least in the 70's he was forthright. he told the world in a sports illustrated article that buffalonian's would support a loser. more recently, he told the world and especially bills fans that the losing was unacceptable. that was a lie. Why is that a lie? Those two things can co-exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Why is that a lie? Those two things can co-exist. unacceptable implies doing what is necessary to stop losing. he clearly did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 you might consider amending your ledger with figures like this: " For Veterans Day last year, the NFL announced that it would donate cash to military groups for each point scored in designated games. During NFL telecasts that weekend, the league was praised for its grand generosity. The total donation came to about $440,000. Annualized, NFL stadium subsidies and tax favors add up to perhaps $1 billion. So the NFL took $1 billion from the public, then sought praise for giving back $440,000—less than a tenth of 1 percent." from the atlantic article "how the nfl fleeces taxpayers". $1 billion/32 is a great deal of money to balance out on a yearly basis from charitable contributions. a few more winning seasons might well mitigate some resentment for the cost. What are the "tax favors" the "NFL" takes from the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 unacceptable implies doing what is necessary to stop losing. he clearly did not. That's not really true. Unacceptable means we won't tolerate losing and changes will be made if we don't win. Different people also have a different idea of doing what is necessary. Just spending money has proven not to be the correct route. The Bills have spent a lot of money in the last decade or so, they have not been cheap, they just spent it on the wrong players. I don't necessarily think that Ralph did all he could but he didn't lie. Losing is unacceptable. That's why Jauron and Chan (and perhaps Marrone) were fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) That's not really true. Unacceptable means we won't tolerate losing and changes will be made if we don't win. Different people also have a different idea of doing what is necessary. Just spending money has proven not to be the correct route. The Bills have spent a lot of money in the last decade or so, they have not been cheap, they just spent it on the wrong players. I don't necessarily think that Ralph did all he could but he didn't lie. Losing is unacceptable. That's why Jauron and Chan (and perhaps Marrone) were fired. c'mon. he said this before hiring gailey. it was the reason so many here were so excited about getting a top tier coach.. it spawned threads on all the possibilities and on absolutely no ones radar was chan f%^&*'n gailey. that's almost as bad as firing a future hof gm in favor of an accountant. i thought we had established that winning wasn't a priority. do you believe that changed when he said that losing was unacceptable? i certainly don't. the following events certainly don't support that assertion. Edited November 23, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) c'mon. he said this before hiring gailey. it was the reason so many here were so excited about getting a top tier coach.. it spawned threads on all the possibilities and on absolutely no ones radar was chan f%^&*'n gailey. that's almost as bad as firing a future hof gm in favor of an accountant. i thought we had established that winning wasn't a priority. do you believe that changed when he said that losing was unacceptable? i certainly don't. the following events certainly don't support that assertion. He went after big name coaches including Shanahan and Cowher and Harbaugh and they turned him down. You're just wrong on this one. Gailey was basically the only one who would take the job, similar to what happened with Pettine and Dennis Allen. Part of the reason they hired Chan was because when Cowher turned them down he recommended Chan. Edited November 23, 2014 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) What are the "tax favors" the "NFL" takes from the public? you'll have to ask the author: http://www.theatlant...xpayers/309448/. i suspect he did his own accounting. He went after big name coaches including Shanahan and Cowher and Harbaugh and they turned him down. You're just wrong on this one. Gailey was basically the only one who would take the job, similar to what happened with Pettine and Dennis Allen. Part of the reason they hired Chan was because when Cowher turned them down he recommended Chan. so what you're saying is that he poisoned the well beyond repair. i'll agree with that. let's agree that if losing was unacceptable he should have committed to winning much earlier. Edited November 23, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 When RW hired Marv as GM and then replaced him with Brandon he sent a message knowingly or not that the Buffalo Bills were no longer competing. And it's those hires in the most critical football position that made it impossible to find a legitimate GM when neither of those two lasted long in that job. Even when RW hired good football guys like Saban or Knox, they eventually had to leave because it was obvious the owner would meddle enough to make it had to win. And that continued into the nineties when he told Wade to start RJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 you'll have to ask the author: http://www.theatlant...xpayers/309448/. i suspect he did his own accounting. so what you're saying is that he poisoned the well beyond repair. i'll agree with that. let's agree that if losing was unacceptable he should have committed to winning much earlier. No, I'm not saying that. At that time, coaches didn't want to come here mostly because better jobs were open at the time and we didn't have a QB to build around. Besides, you said he lied, not that he was making poor choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) No, I'm not saying that. At that time, coaches didn't want to come here mostly because better jobs were open at the time and we didn't have a QB to build around. Besides, you said he lied, not that he was making poor choices. fine, he didn't lie. he just set fan expectations above a level that he could deliver. ok? whether the interviews of the big name coaches was an elaborate kabuki dance is open to interpretation. Edited November 23, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 fine, he didn't lie. he just set fan expectations above a level that he could deliver. ok? whether the interviews of the big name coaches was an elaborate kabuki dance is open to interpretation. That made me laugh. An owner set fan expectations too high? Did you seriously just type that as a criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 That made me laugh. An owner set fan expectations too high? Did you seriously just type that as a criticism? setting expectations higher than likely and higher than remotely possible are two very different things. but just so we're clear you're saying that it's common for nil owners to be dishonest, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 setting expectations higher than likely and higher than remotely possible are two very different things. but just so we're clear you're saying that it's common for nil owners to be dishonest, correct? When it comes to predicting the success of the teams? Why would anyone listen to that? It's like a QB saying to his linemen in the huddle with a minute to go "we're going to go right down the field and score and win this game." It's like saying "we're going to do everything we can to get this team to the playoffs" or "We believe we can win." None of them are to be taken seriously, or have anything to do with what the fans believe, or a lie or being dishonest. That's what sports are. Every single team in every single sport sells hope to some degree. It's just my opinion, and you are entitled to believe anything you want, but listening literally to any owner or GM or coach and taking them literally is ridiculous. Not only that, but fans and media would absolutely abuse them to death if they would say the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I realize we are talking about Ralph and Polians book..... To me that era has ended.....we are in the Pegula era now.......and I have a feeling this is gonna ran much differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 (edited) Bill Polian has a bit of a selective memory. GO BILLS!!! How so? There is no doubt that Polian is not an angelic figure in this historical saga. He was a volatile person who didn't always treat others with the respect they deserved. It's also well known he wasn't always appropriate/professional with hs dealings with Littman, and to an extent with the owner. But putting personalities aside the fundamental disagreement with Littman (who represented Wilson's business interest) was over the financial constraints and conflicts regarding money for the football operation. The bottom line is that the owner preferred Littman's approach to the football business over Polian's approach to his business. Littman was running the business in the way the owner wanted. That is the owner's prerogative. The conflict between Littman and Polian in reality was a conflict between Wilson and Polian's conflicting visions about how the business was going to be run. When you are the boss you rule the roost. In the end Polian's departure was inevitable. Edited November 24, 2014 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts