It all starts at the top...

[Delete This Account]

You missed one very key comment that Donahoe spoke about, and that was that the fans don't know the sorts of constraints he was placed under when he was trying to hire coaches. To me that remark fully implicates Wilson. (Donahoe answered to no one other than Wilson.) It also casts a shadow on the financial aspects of the Bills organization, suggesting that they are quite reluctant to tender attractive offers to prospects in the coaching ranks. OTOH, Donahoe may have been (read: was to some extent) covering his posterior, but the fact is that the Bills have been near the bottom of the NFL in coaching salaries in recent years. Indeed, I'd say they've only had one big NFL name coaching hire in their 50 year history, Chuck Knox. (Saban was a college coach and Levy was a retread that had failed in Kansas City; many were very skeptical of Levy at first.)

i don't recall Tom ever discussing what constraints he was under. in fact, Mr. Wilson made is sound as if Tom acted without restraint to the point he didn't keep the owner in the loop on certain developments.

it's a he-said, she-said argument.

 

the fact that Tom was paid handsomely also undercuts the argument that Mr. Wilson won't pay executives top dollar.

 

and there is also a belief that Tom Donahoe had the opportunity and approval to spend more on a coach during both searches and failed to do so.

 

jw

[Sisyphean Bills]

i don't recall Tom ever discussing what constraints he was under. in fact, Mr. Wilson made is sound as if Tom acted without restraint to the point he didn't keep the owner in the loop on certain developments.

it's a he-said, she-said argument.

 

the fact that Tom was paid handsomely also undercuts the argument that Mr. Wilson won't pay executives top dollar.

 

and there is also a belief that Tom Donahoe had the opportunity and approval to spend more on a coach during both searches and failed to do so.

 

jw

I don't recall a lot of things either. Doesn't make them any less true.

 

I thought I tried to be pretty even-handed in my post. Was this TD just doing a CYA? Or was there more to the comment? For that matter is Mr. Wilson playing a bit of CYA? It's fairly clear from your revelations of your discussions what he thinks of Mr. Donahoe.

 

None of us were there behind closed doors and bugging the phones.

 

Personally, I understand that they are both human beings and thus flawed and both at fault.

 

PS: FWIW, I am hardly a "TD homer". The Bills were the 4th worst team in the NFL during his stewardship of the team. TD hasn't been an NFL exec since his firing. That tells us something.

[DarthICE]

i don't recall Tom ever discussing what constraints he was under. in fact, Mr. Wilson made is sound as if Tom acted without restraint to the point he didn't keep the owner in the loop on certain developments.

it's a he-said, she-said argument.

 

the fact that Tom was paid handsomely also undercuts the argument that Mr. Wilson won't pay executives top dollar.

 

and there is also a belief that Tom Donahoe had the opportunity and approval to spend more on a coach during both searches and failed to do so.

 

jw

 

The one thing that TD did that really pissed me off was say something to the effect John Fox needed to work on his interview skills or something like that. Who cares? Give me a flippin break. Gee Tom, how did Williams and Mularkey work out vs Fox in Carolina? Oh yeah fox is something like the 2nd or 3rd most tenured HC in the NFL with constant playoff appearances and a Superbowl appearance. He obviously interviewed well for Jerry Richardson.

[DarthICE]

you make very valid points, and i think this is all open for debate and discussion.

 

jw

 

ADD: as for my thoughts on Ms. Moran's lawsuit, they're discussed in other thread on this board.

 

Thanks, I saw your post on that thread and agree.

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

so, you're saying that Mr. Wilson needed to meddle more. thanks for arguing my point.

 

jw

No, I am saying that under our system he has the "right" to "meddle" as much as he wants to. However, I am also saying that just because he has the "right" to do this does not make it the right (meaning productive or producing good things) thing to do.

 

Ralph has exercised his "right" of ownership of this team to do generally what he wants. The problem is for those of us who want to see this team do well in terms of more Ws and fewer Ls is that what he has wanted to do have led to:

 

1. Him personally making a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in future deals when he (and Butler as well since it at least happened on Butler's watch) in reality had no future. Ralph simply blew it when he made this football assessment as thanks to Jax when a comatose minded Jim was wheeled off the field the reality which could be seen by all, but was ignored by Ralph and those in charge in his struggling leadership in his last season. This error which had Ralph and Ralph alone fingerprints all over this handshake deal kept the Bills on the same course which did not see them either draft or acquire as an FA a credible replacement for Kelly in 1994. In 95 they reached a bit and took TC in the 2nd and then rushed him into a starters role to try to replace the fallen JK when he at least needed another year to try (if they could) train the happy feet out of him.

 

It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to try to absolve Ralph of any blame for the any of the Bills post Jimbo QB reign of errors or attempt to lay the blame solely on TDs doorstep when it stemmed from the from a demonstrably wrong misassessment of how much Jimbo had left which had Ralph's fingerprints literally all over it since only he could make a handshake deal with Jimbo.

 

Arguably Ralph as a "right" to meddle in making this deal (though ironically, this handshake deal actually violated on the face of it the salary cap and I GUESS is part of the reason his HOF entry was delayed) as he is the one who ultimately signs the checks, but to the extent that bludgeoning of the QB situation (rushing TC along, trading for Hobert, giving a guaranteed bonus to RJ AND signing an incentive laden deal with Flutie which when RJ proved to be injury prone and Flutie performed like AJ thought he would forced us to extend Flutie and still have a huge cap hit locked up at QB, and on and on through the mistaken extension of Bledsoe which TD led us off the cliff into) it all goes back to Ralph's handshake deal.

 

2. Again I am saying Ralph had the owners right to meddle in this series of QB miscues such as acquiring Hobert, signing both deals with RJ/Flutie, etc. but also see that a good chunk of these mistakes were not the right thing to do demonstrably at all. It is an irony that in fact Ralph would be guilty of malpractice as an owner if he simply allowed TD, Butler, and whomever make this QB mistakes without any significant input from Ralph (my GUESS is that Ralph had his fingerprints all over the handshake deal but likely Butler also made the bad assessment Jimbo would survive as a player to have a future contract so though this was demonstrably a Ralph led decision (no one else had the authority to make an off the books handshake deal).

 

My GUESS is that the lead fault for each miscue was stretching for TC and rushing along- A Butler led mistake to deal with a Ralph led misread of Kelly, Hobert- a Ralph led error since significant Bills resources like trading a 3rd, signing him to a big deal and then cutting him with a huge loss with Marv doing the public dirtywork was likely a Ralph led miscue but I may be wrong and it was a Butler led miscue but somethings led Butler to simply screw the Bills and Ralph when he left so something pissed him off and if he had led the Hobert misread I think he already would have screwed the Bills and his jumping ship to SD would have been piling on that did not fit the situation and seeming trust Ralph gave Butler in his final season.

 

The foolish dual signing of RJ/Flutie which set the Bills on a track of overcap allocation to the QB spot when RJ was guaranteed and Flutie hit his incentives- I think this miscue had multiple cooks as AJ and Butler thought Flutie was good enough to hit the incentives and Butler/Ralph had to be pivotally involved in a decision to guarantee the RJ contract.

 

The Bledsoe deal was actually a good move to acquire him as we had nothing at QB when he walked into town, his first year record was demonstrably good but the mistake seemed to be a TD led effort when his contract was stupidly extended when we should have simply counted his work here as a wash with a very good first season and a very bad second season.

 

There were tons of other miscues in our decade plus long search to replace Jimbo but the bottomline should be that Ralph was all over a bunch of these decisions and it makes little sense to blame someone else like TD for all of them.

 

3. Whatever in that one can try to trace blame to Ralph on any particular decision and in some cases one would be right and in other cases one would be wrong to primarily blame Ralph.

 

My main point is that what would clearly be wrong would be to blame Ralph for all of the decade+ long disaster, but one would be equally wrong to exonerate him of all sins in how this team managed itself over the past decade +.

 

It's Ralph's "right" as the owner in our system to "meddle" if he chooses, but it is pretty clear that in particular with the series of QB choices that though Ralph had a "right" to meddle his meddling proved time and again to be the wrong thing to do if your goal is to produce a lot more Ws than Ls.

[Delete This Account]

My main point is that what would clearly be wrong would be to blame Ralph for all of the decade+ long disaster, but one would be equally wrong to exonerate him of all sins in how this team managed itself over the past decade +.

to make a long story, ahem, short ... if you read my posts in this thread, that's exactly what i've been saying. and yet posters have persisted to lay all/most of the blame on Mr. Wilson while overlooking other factors.

 

jw

[birdog1960]

righto! weaseled.

with this statement, you pay disrespect not only to Mr. Wilson but to the Hall of Fame voting committee, which has historically done a tremendous job in making the Pro Football Hall of Fame one of the toughest places to be inducted in all of sports. so now everyone's wrong but you.

very good.

 

jw

Isn't success in sports usually defined by winning and losing? By that criteria, he's a loser (and not over just the last 10 years) and one wonders why the committee chose him. If success in sports is defined as getting rich...I guess you're right.

[The Senator]

Couple points of clarification, SJBF...

 

Only four coaches in Bills history have been able to post a winning percentage during their tenure here, Lou Saban, Chuck Knox, Marv Levy, and Wade Phillips. Those four coaches have accounted for 16 of our 17 winning seasons. Aside from those four, Mike Mularkey is the only other Bills coach with a winning season. Marv retired. The others were fired.

Lou Saban & Chuck Knox were not fired - Lou quit on Ralph twice (the second time, in mid-season); Chuck Knox chose not to remain with the Bills, and left for Seattle when his contract was up.

 

Our greatest coach, Lou Saban, died never having been recognized/rewarded by Ralph Wilson for our two AFL Championships.

It's debatable whether Lou or Marv is the Bills greatest coach - but Lou's name would be on the Wall of Fame with Marv's, had he not quit - twice.

 

The player that many longtime Bills fans consider the greatest Bill ever, Cookie Gilchrist, has never been recognized/rewarded by Ralph Wilson for his great contributions to the team's early success (the two championships).

Cookie was only here for one of the two AFL Championships and only here for a total of three seasons. Don't know he's considered "the great Bill ever" - but his name probably belongs on The Wall.

 

I think that Ralph recognizes the Gilchrist's talent and contribution to the team, but is probably ambivalent because Cookie caused so much havoc off the field...

 

"He could be an All-Pro today, Bills owner Ralph Wilson said. He had the size, 250 lbs., but could run like Thurman Thomas. He had only a high school education, but he could be very, very entertaining. He was smart, but he was hard to control. He gave us three years and he was very instrumental in our success back in those days."

 

It's probably behavior and commenst like this that make Ralph fell ambivalent about putting Cookie on the Wall...

 

In that first championship season in 1964, things began to unravel. In November, Cookie was cut by coach Lou Saban after refusing to take the field in the first half of a game, against the Boston Patriots. Just before halftime Saban told Gilchrist to go into the game, even though the Bills were just going to kneel on the ball. Gilchrist, upset that he wasn't getting the ball enough, refused. The Bills went on to lose their first game after winning nine in a row and some say Gilchrist was used as a scapegoat by Saban in a ploy to ignite the team and to solidify his hold on the team. If Saban wasn't afraid to cut one of the best players on the team, if not the league, no one was safe. Gilchrist had also blasted Jack Kemp in an interview with Sport magazine.

 

"Kemp passes too much and then we get in trouble and Lamonica has to come in and straighten us out. The trouble with Kemp is he uses me 18 to 20 times a game. Lamonica uses me, boom, boom, boom, three or four times in a row, 30 to 35 times a game and I stay hot. Kemp picks his plays out of a hat. Lamonica is smart."

 

Incidents and comments like those, coupled with some off-the field personal problems, led to the Bills trading him to Denver for Billy Joe - the 1964 AFL Rookie of the Year, and caused Lou Saban to say of the trade...

 

"It had to happen. The situation between Cookie and the Bills had become impossible. He had been a great player, I wish him well in Denver."

 

Our greatest general manager, Bill Polian, was fired by Ralph.

Polian was a hothead who brought in on himself. Ralph 'put up' with Bill's temper tantrums, until the proverbial 'straw that broke the camels back' - calling Ralph's late daughter a c%nt.

 

Our second greatest general manager, John Butler, was fired by Ralph.

Ralph did fire Butler, but Butler was as good as gone anyway - in his mind, he was already headed to San Diego. Ralph repeated asked Butler about his intentions after the season (Butler's contract was set to expire) and, when he felt so uncomfortable with Butler's refusal to commit, Ralph felt he was going to have to go get another GM anyway, so he shot Butler and (unfortunately) brought in Whitey.

 

Ralph Wilson is in the Hall of Fame for his contributions towards founding and building the AFL and his role in the merger, etc.

 

But as the owner of the Bills, he's done a horrible job. Yes, he's kept the team here but the end result of that is that we, the greatest football fans in the world, continue to endure season after season of Ralph Wilson's clueless bumbling.

If the Bills won just one of those four Superbowls - and I don't think Ralph suited up for any of them - you probably wouldn't disparage him so harshly.

 

But I understand your frustration. This playoff drought has got to end. Ralph needs to put a parking space at OBD for...

 

Mike Leach

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

to make a long story, ahem, short ... if you read my posts in this thread, that's exactly what i've been saying. and yet posters have persisted to lay all/most of the blame on Mr. Wilson while overlooking other factors.

 

jw

Making things short is something I rarely do so my apologies for either simply beating a dead horse reiterating points already made with my typically wordy posts or for not reading the whole thread (as I usually do not do since I tend to bop in and out of TSW as I am off blathering on at too great a length in my real job or on other things.

 

I certainly did not pick up from my too spotty viewing of the full thread ant sense that you have a full view of Mr. Wilson (or simply Ralph as I tend to refer to him). Perhaps my spotty reading has only had me stumble across the parts of your fully fair and balanced view in which you are defending him against attacks that do not take into account the good things he has done.

 

I feel strongly that an essential part of the Ralph story is that he performed a necessary element in that he has kept the Bills here when he could have cashed in and moved or gotten a big cash in by moving to some other town like St. L or B-more which paid a queen's ransom to steal the Browns from Cleveland or the Rams from LA. Ralph has never pursued or taken these deals and Buffalo owes him gratitude for this.

 

However, along with seeing this broad truth, i think the issue of more immediate concern and also which sets the tone for the future is a clear acknowlgement that how wrong Ralph has been in the way he has exercised his right to run the team he owns.

 

I think my overly lengthy posts have found fault with any claims such as ones which lay sole or even primary blame on tools hired by Ralph like TD for messing things up.

 

Such a view might be useful in reminding folks we do really owe Mr. Wilson gratitude for keeping the Bills here when he could have cashed in big time by moving. However, it simply departs reality and goes to far to let the memory of the good things he did somehow obscure the truth that he has presided over a team that prior to the late 80s and post the SB years has been run about as badly as any team in the NFL.

 

In particular a bow to reality must acknowledge that It was Ralph alone who could make a handshake deal with Jimbo that was simply a bad misread of how much he had left and set the course for over a decade of stupid QB tricks some of which seem to link in a pretty direct way with Ralph's bad work.

 

True some of this seems to link pretty directly to poor work by TD, but even these fauz pas only demonstrate Ralph's failings in that it seems pretty obvious in retrospect he shold have checked and balanced TDs failings as many of his stupid activities seem linked to his efforts to make sure no HC he hired would suceed in running him out of town like Cowher did.

 

Mr. Wilson is clearly a mixed bag in terms of the outcomes of his work, but Ralph seems to be clearly screwing the pooch big time in the past decade of action.

 

I am glad you agree with this fuller fair and balanced view of Mr. Wilson/Ralph!

[jwws9999]

i don't recall Tom ever discussing what constraints he was under. in fact, Mr. Wilson made is sound as if Tom acted without restraint to the point he didn't keep the owner in the loop on certain developments.

it's a he-said, she-said argument.

 

the fact that Tom was paid handsomely also undercuts the argument that Mr. Wilson won't pay executives top dollar.

 

and there is also a belief that Tom Donahoe had the opportunity and approval to spend more on a coach during both searches and failed to do so.

 

jw

 

 

all this complaining about that idiot ralph would go away if he ran the team better

[Delete This Account]

all this complaining about that idiot ralph would go away if he ran the team better

the glue factory's calling and it wants that dead horse you're beating.

as for your lack of imaginative use of the English language, well, we can't all be perfect or civil.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

Isn't success in sports usually defined by winning and losing? By that criteria, he's a loser (and not over just the last 10 years) and one wonders why the committee chose him. If success in sports is defined as getting rich...I guess you're right.

i wasn't in that room, but since you have all the answers, what's the point of arguing.

 

jw

[thebandit27]

Isn't success in sports usually defined by winning and losing? By that criteria, he's a loser (and not over just the last 10 years) and one wonders why the committee chose him. If success in sports is defined as getting rich...I guess you're right.

 

Let me get this straight: the guy that OWNS the team is a loser, according to the tough guy that sits on his azz and rips him on a message board?

[birdog1960]

Let me get this straight: the guy that OWNS the team is a loser, according to the tough guy that sits on his azz and rips him on a message board?

Depends on how you define loser. A fair definition might be one who loses. .475 winning percentage over 50 years means you lose more than you win (i could be wrong my calculus is rusty). If you lose more than you win over that time span and are unlikely to change that ratio, then yes, I think that qualifies. If you mean that he's a winner because he's worth over a billion dollars, I'd say your right but I thought this board was about football.

[/dev/null]

If it starts at the top and sh-t rolls down hill, that explains the sh-tty play in the trenches

[thewildrabbit]

Ralph Wilson is notorious for being more then just frugal, if not for Bill Polian the Bills would have never signed Jim Kelly or kept Bruce Smith after his first contract.

 

The list of players lost is more then likely countless because of RW unwilling to pay them the going rate. Sometimes that can be understandable,other times not.

 

Love him or hate him the guy could have moved the franchise away from Buffalo dozens of times and made more money in the process, he choose to keep them here.

 

To Wilson, Pro football is more business then passion, he would rather make money then win super bowls. I personally believe he will die knowing he won some AFL and AFC Championships and went to the SB 4 times and did it while making as much money as he could given the location he chose, and he will die happy.

[birdog1960]

Ralph Wilson is notorious for being more then just frugal, if not for Bill Polian the Bills would have never signed Jim Kelly or kept Bruce Smith after his first contract.

 

The list of players lost is more then likely countless because of RW unwilling to pay them the going rate. Sometimes that can be understandable,other times not.

 

Love him or hate him the guy could have moved the franchise away from Buffalo dozens of times and made more money in the process, he choose to keep them here.

 

To Wilson, Pro football is more business then passion, he would rather make money then win super bowls. I personally believe he will die knowing he won some AFL and AFC Championships and went to the SB 4 times and did it while making as much money as he could given the location he chose, and he will die happy.

Good points. He probably will, even though his accountants have probably told him that his net worth equals about 15% of the annual income of all the current residents of metropolitan Buffalo ($24.500 per year per capita X272000 population versus $1 billion rough estimate) from whom much of his wealth came, while providing a poor product most of the time. But his happiness is what's important.

[ThereIsNoDog]

Ralph Wilson is notorious for being more then just frugal, if not for Bill Polian the Bills would have never signed Jim Kelly or kept Bruce Smith after his first contract.

 

The list of players lost is more then likely countless because of RW unwilling to pay them the going rate. Sometimes that can be understandable,other times not.

What players do you believe the Bills let walk because Ralph was the one who wouldn't pay them/didn't want them back?

 

Love him or hate him the guy could have moved the franchise away from Buffalo dozens of times and made more money in the process, he choose to keep them here.

 

To Wilson, Pro football is more business then passion, he would rather make money then win super bowls. I personally believe he will die knowing he won some AFL and AFC Championships and went to the SB 4 times and did it while making as much money as he could given the location he chose, and he will die happy.

So if he's more interested in making money than winning SB's, why keep the team in Buffalo all these years?

[jester43]

Says the guy with Ralph as his avatar

i haven't read all 10 pages of this thread...just curious as to whether someone has explained it to you yet...

[jwws9999]

to make a long story, ahem, short ... if you read my posts in this thread, that's exactly what i've been saying. and yet posters have persisted to lay all/most of the blame on Mr. Wilson while overlooking other factors.

 

jw

 

they lay the blame on wilson because it's the truth. your arguments have been reduced to mindless name calling and girly comebacks. Ralph got lucky and fell into a pot of gold, all while building an organization that has lost more than it has won. But like any child, you always think it's someone else's fault, or come up with an excuse. Ralph had several winning systems in the past (Saban, Knox, and Polian), and always managed to screw them up. So keep making whiny excuses for him, while people spend their hard earned money on an inferior product, all because our joke of an owner can't get along with people, or manage his way out of a paper bag