Unretire 32?

[North Buffalo]

why? It's just a freaking number.

It's 32. Who cares. Did you tell people you were 33 when you were 32 just because you were that offended by the number?

People on this board have too many feelings.

why? It's just a freaking number.

It's 32. Who cares. Did you tell people you were 33 when you were 32 just because you were that offended by the number?

People on this board have too many feelings.

The offspring: Feelings

[mrags]

The offspring: Feelings

[ndirish1978]

Tim Graham is a putz.

What OJ did on the football field has nothing to do with what a scumbag is his off it, if that was the case you could probably take a bunch of people out of the HOF. The guy was and still is in the top 3 players to ever be a Bill.

 

I agree with the second half. Tim is a pretty decent writer, unfortunately he seems to adore being a troll (just look at literally any day on his twitter); which is weird, because he stopped posting on this board because people were trolling him.

Edited May 12, 2016 by ndirish1978

[Gordio]

 

Gordio ... was this 2009-ish or before, by chance?

 

 

Yeah it was.

 

if you re-post your post perhaps we can find out?!?!

 

 

I think the post was deleted but I could tell you verbatim what I said. After he called out Wilson in one of his articles I said & I quote " F*ck T Graham, that article is nothing but a cheap shot at Ralph Wilson & he doesn't deserve such disrespect."

 

Now I probably should of left the first part out but they could of at least gave me a warning before banning me for a year.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Gordio

[3rdand12]

 

RyanC883, on 12 May 2016 - 1:25 PM, said:

I guess I disagree with your criteria for the Wall. I think of the Wall as a Buffalo Bills Hall of Fame. If you count "off the field," Kelly would NOT have been eligible until after his playing days were long over and he changed. What if he continued being a philander and moved back to Miami, saying he hated Buffalo winters.

 

Thats fine, i have no problem with the general consensus

: )

[North Buffalo]

Tim Graham sucks ...

Tim Graham sucks... lol

yeh what happens sometimes when using an I phone and not being able to see the full screen.

[3rdand12]

i want to OJ Simpson you.

Haha not sure what that means, but its pretty funny nonetheless

[DrDawkinstein]

why? It's just a freaking number.

 

It's 32. Who cares. Did you tell people you were 33 when you were 32 just because you were that offended by the number?

 

People on this board have too many feelings.

 

After reading through this thread, Ive come around to this as well.

 

I think they should let someone wear it, and they should do so ASAP! Start re-defining the number. The more good/great players that wear the number 32, the less anyone needs to talk about OJ.

[folz]

Besides, his son did it.

 

I know I'll probably get lambasted for this, but why are you all so sure that he committed the crimes he was accused of? Do you all have more information than the jury was privy to? I watched that trial from start to finish and I wouldn't have convicted if I were on that jury and it had nothing to do with me being a Bills fan. There were so many questions and holes in the story. The cops were convinced O.J. did it right from the beginning and therefore did not follow up on leads like the two guys dressed all in black running through the neighborhood...spotted by neighbors just moments after the crime; they didn't interview O.J.'s eldest son who was not only mentally disturbed, had a history of violence, worked as a chef so would carry his set of knives with him to and from work, but he was also in love with Nicole and had no alibi for the time of the murders; they handled the blood samples improperly (the cop took them home with him overnight!); at least Furman (if not others on the police force) had it in for O.J. due to prior incidents; for someone to commit that crime in the brutal way they did, they would have been covered in blood from head-to-toe, yet all they found were a couple of drips on a sock and a couple of drips in the Bronco (did anyone watch "The Making of a Murderer?"...cops planting evidence doesn't seem as outrageous in 2016 as it might have back then); and some say the way they were killed looked like a "hit" (done in a ritualistic manner or mafia-style); yet not one other suspect was ever thought of---they didn't look into Ron's life at all, what if someone was after him not Nicole, no, they just zoomed in immediately and solely on O.J.; the only thing connecting O.J. to the glove was Kato's testimony (a mooching, actor who wanted the limelight) and even with that, he said he heard something but he didn't see anything, plus that back alley was searched a couple of times before the glove magically appeared on I believe the third search...I could go on, but you get the point.

 

Anyhow, I don't know for a fact one way or the other if O.J. committed the murders, or didn't but helped cover them up, or had nothing to do with them. But there were mountains of reasonable doubts for me. Let's face it, because of the media coverage, O.J. was convicted in the court of public opinion before the trial even started. That's the sad part of American justice these days. It is almost impossible to have a fair trial in a high profile case because everyone has already made up their minds before seeing all of the evidence. I don't know what happened, but neither does anyone else who wasn't there and yet most of this country takes it as 100% fact that he did it despite all of the holes in the prosecution's (and the police's) stories/case. Why?

 

I know this probably won't convince any of you otherwise...I guess I've just had this issue on my chest for a long time and this seemed like the right time and place to finally let it out. Sorry...and Flame away!

 

 

Anyhow, to the topic, regardless of whether O.J. did it or not, I agree with those who say you can't erase history. And if you eliminated the work of anyone who might have been an unsavory character, or corrupt, or committed a crime, or who thought differently from you, etc. our history books would be pretty slim and you would have to give up most of your heroes (be they musicians, artists, writers, politicians and state leaders, actors, directors, CEOs, athletes, etc.).

 

And, yeah, as far as the team goes, for PR reasons due to public opinion, I would leave it status quo as others have said. Don't retire it and don't issue it

[jr1]

[KollegeStudnet]

No.

[BaaadThingsMan]

Yes

Unretire but i wouldnt re-issue right now atleast. Great accomplishments don't necessarily mean nobody ever wears that number again. He was a pretty good player though and he could hurdle bags in the airport like nobodys business

 

Oh and Tim Graham sucks

[26CornerBlitz]

Yes

Unretire but i wouldnt re-issue right now atleast. Great accomplishments don't necessarily mean nobody ever wears that number again. He was a pretty good player though and he could hurdle bags in the airport like nobodys business

 

Again, #32 is not officially retired. Pretty good player? That is quite the understatement.

[klos63]

No way. One of the best ever. Point.blank Period. I'm betting most of the people who vote yes never lived through his heydey or saw him play live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, his son did it.

He was found 'not guilty'

[ndirish1978]

Numbers being retired are not an endorsement of the athlete as a person, they are an acknowledgement of the player's meaningful on-field contributions. This number is not retired, it has simply been out of use. Honestly, it's a headache. Would YOU want to take 32 and have to see all the stupid memes and hear the jokes you're gonna get thrown at you? Cause if that bothers someone for even a minute, they shouldn't take it.

[BaaadThingsMan]

Again, #32 is not officially retired. Pretty good player? That is quite the understatement.

I know but its been covered, that was the short version.

[klos63]

No, No and hell no. You guys obviously never saw him run. Post NFL crap aside still the best running back I ever saw. He could stiff arm a guy and run over him. Flat out run around the other team or break a guys jock a la Barry Sanders all at 6'2". 2nd fastest guys in the league when he was there behind only Cliff Branch. So no dont do it just because twitts are bandwagoning against OJ. Sorry this imo is an irresponsible stupid thread that caters to the trumpisms of the world and Graham has long been known for his hatred of the Bills, heck the guys is from Miami but wasnt good enough to get job down there.

Wrong! just plane politically correct wrong.

The thought police are at it again. Just because post NFL the man did something henious, doesnt mean he should be erased, both sides of his greateness and vileness should be remembered imo.

This has nothing to do with being 'plain' politically correct. While I don't agree with the unretire of the number(and really don't care either way) it's a legitimate question for legitimate reasons. Stop trying to act like Trump- one of him is one too many.

 

 

Will be on TV soon. I read a review saying it's an amazing OJ documentary.

https://www.inverse.com/article/15436-espn-s-o-j-made-in-america-documentary-gives-you-what-american-crime-story-didn-t

Edited May 12, 2016 by klos63

[DrDawkinstein]

Numbers being retired are not an endorsement of the athlete as a person, they are an acknowledgement of the player's meaningful on-field contributions. This number is not retired, it has simply been out of use. Honestly, it's a headache. Would YOU want to take 32 and have to see all the stupid memes and hear the jokes you're gonna get thrown at you? Cause if that bothers someone for even a minute, they shouldn't take it.

 

I'd argue that if that that bothers someone, they shouldnt be in professional sports and the public eye anyways.

 

The memes and jokes (oh the humanity) would last a couple of months, tops. Heck, I have some great Tunsil memes and never even bothered to post them here because... who cares?

 

And once the jokes were done for the first person, they'd be old and nonexistent for everyone there after.

[stevewin]

 

I know I'll probably get lambasted for this, but why are you all so sure that he committed the crimes he was accused of? Do you all have more information than the jury was privy to? I watched that trial from start to finish and I wouldn't have convicted if I were on that jury and it had nothing to do with me being a Bills fan. There were so many questions and holes in the story. The cops were convinced O.J. did it right from the beginning and therefore did not follow up on leads like the two guys dressed all in black running through the neighborhood...spotted by neighbors just moments after the crime; they didn't interview O.J.'s eldest son who was not only mentally disturbed, had a history of violence, worked as a chef so would carry his set of knives with him to and from work, but he was also in love with Nicole and had no alibi for the time of the murders; they handled the blood samples improperly (the cop took them home with him overnight!); at least Furman (if not others on the police force) had it in for O.J. due to prior incidents; for someone to commit that crime in the brutal way they did, they would have been covered in blood from head-to-toe, yet all they found were a couple of drips on a sock and a couple of drips in the Bronco (did anyone watch "The Making of a Murderer?"...cops planting evidence doesn't seem as outrageous in 2016 as it might have back then); and some say the way they were killed looked like a "hit" (done in a ritualistic manner or mafia-style); yet not one other suspect was ever thought of---they didn't look into Ron's life at all, what if someone was after him not Nicole, no, they just zoomed in immediately and solely on O.J.; the only thing connecting O.J. to the glove was Kato's testimony (a mooching, actor who wanted the limelight) and even with that, he said he heard something but he didn't see anything, plus that back alley was searched a couple of times before the glove magically appeared on I believe the third search...I could go on, but you get the point.

 

Anyhow, I don't know for a fact one way or the other if O.J. committed the murders, or didn't but helped cover them up, or had nothing to do with them. But there were mountains of reasonable doubts for me. Let's face it, because of the media coverage, O.J. was convicted in the court of public opinion before the trial even started. That's the sad part of American justice these days. It is almost impossible to have a fair trial in a high profile case because everyone has already made up their minds before seeing all of the evidence. I don't know what happened, but neither does anyone else who wasn't there and yet most of this country takes it as 100% fact that he did it despite all of the holes in the prosecution's (and the police's) stories/case. Why?

 

I know this probably won't convince any of you otherwise...I guess I've just had this issue on my chest for a long time and this seemed like the right time and place to finally let it out. Sorry...and Flame away!

 

 

Anyhow, to the topic, regardless of whether O.J. did it or not, I agree with those who say you can't erase history. And if you eliminated the work of anyone who might have been an unsavory character, or corrupt, or committed a crime, or who thought differently from you, etc. our history books would be pretty slim and you would have to give up most of your heroes (be they musicians, artists, writers, politicians and state leaders, actors, directors, CEOs, athletes, etc.).

 

And, yeah, as far as the team goes, for PR reasons due to public opinion, I would leave it status quo as others have said. Don't retire it and don't issue it

I honestly believe that at some point OJ might have been at the scene (possibly after the fact), but that his son actually committed the murders. There was some investigator who used to have a video on youtube that had some very convincing evidence/arguments that the son did it. My kids laugh at me when I say OJ is innocent, partly because they are from a generation where OJ is synonymous with murderer (I bet there are a lot of people today who think that he was convicted, not found innocent)

Edited May 12, 2016 by stevewin

[GunnerBill]

RyanC883, on 12 May 2016 - 1:25 PM, said:

I guess I disagree with your criteria for the Wall. I think of the Wall as a Buffalo Bills Hall of Fame. If you count "off the field," Kelly would NOT have been eligible until after his playing days were long over and he changed. What if he continued being a philander and moved back to Miami, saying he hated Buffalo winters.

Then I wouldn't put him on the wall.

 

I am 100% with 3rd and 12 here. I don't think much needs adding to his comment.