Delete This Account

for those who might not understand the business, a fuller version with direct quotes has been filed and will be moving shortly. and for those who like to make cracks, i think you'll find it interesting of what Mr. Wilson had to say in regards to why he takes the full blame and also making comments about his age. jw

Just spoke to Mr. Wilson earlier this afternoon. Story has been filed and should be moving on the AP wire shortly. jw

that was my thought, too. but they can be criticized for going the long way about doing things. i appreciate Nix and Gailey saying they need to re-evaluate, but they're doing so at the expense of an entire season. wouldn't rule out any other moves at this point, given how they're dumping players that don't fit. i wouldn't put it past them to wrangle another draft pick before Oct. 19. however, that's only a guess at this point. jw

with all due respect, and to be fair to all, must point out that i was informed by the Bills at around 6 p.m. last night that Nix was going to be made available some time today. jw

stopped here. mild, though. jw (worst poster nominee).

and i'm the moron? look, bub, you still don't seem to get it. at no point in my discussions in a previous thread with you did i indicate it's time to stop being a fan or to give up on the Bills. in fact, i wrote and continue to believe, that this team, like it or not, was in a rebuilding phase this season and the hope was there would be signs of growth and progress by the end of the season. it's only Week 3, and you've apparently given up. fine. i'll maintain my objectivity and wait until this season is over and determine whether this team is on the right track. look at me, defending the Bills, and yet i'm not even a fan. ... well, come to think of it, maybe i am, in fact, a moron. jw

wouldn't want my wife, mom, my two sisters-in-law or any four of my nieces to be referred that way. so, using that gauge, i think the word is ugly and should be reserved in only the most extreme cases. as one definition I've found reads: "One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous." based on that, i don't think the word applied in this case and was used by someone for mere effect. jw

no need to apologize. of note, i've generally gotten involved in media-related threads to either: 1) provide my two cents in as i did in the women in locker room thread. 2) to defend a colleague of mine, when i think he/she's been wronged, as happened when the one bozo fatty-mcfat-fat-pig mischaracterized the conversation he had with Jerry Sullivan. if people have trouble with media coverage on a whole, fine. we're not perfect in this business. but it's curious when i see all these links to stories produced by actual members of the media. guess it's a love-hate deal. jw

why? there are those on this board who consider me being the "all-knowing highness" as SwampD refered to me over on the Aud Club board, a thread that's been pointed out to my attention. i guess i have a reactionary reputation, and am sometimes quick to hit the flame button. to what point or advantage would i have if i provided any insight into this thread. heck, i'm even hesitant to put in this thread, in fear of being targeted and then accused for being thin-skinned or defensive. i'll defend myself only in asking anyone to take a look at the body of work i've written over the past year, in my stories and on this board in regards to Schobel, Lynch, T.O., and Michael Vick for that matter, and point out where i've gone overboard or been wrong. heck, i was even attacked for having the balls to dispute a poster who suggested the Dolphins were "the joke of the AFC East." and to SwampD's point, i don't understand how i'm all so high-and-mighty, when in reviewing the "women in the locker room" thread in question, you were the one who referred to the reporter as "a skank" (that's just an ugly word) and then suggested women should wear burkas. but of course, the media's opinion is a joke. why go on and dispute that if that's what people believe. jw

probably shoulda stopped there, because you then went on to confirm it. jw

bags ARE allowed ... or at least "sacks" are. jw

i agree to a point. the trouble is, Spiller was supposed to be used more like a Chris Johnson not a Reggie Bush. and the Bills and everyone touted how he's unafraid to run between the tackles. i realize it's very early, but this is something that should be monitored, given that Spiller is supposed to be a key building block for this offense. jw

this is absolutely uncalled for. how dare you invoke perspective and reason to this board. you should be ashamed for refusing to be a kneejerk reactionary. jw nice post, by the way. for discussion purposes, i still don't think the Bills were showcasing Lynch. i do believe they felt he was the best and stronger back to take on a hard-hitting Packers defense. also, i do think Spiller's lack of playing time should be regarded as an early season disappointment. there was no indication that Spiller would get so little playing time, and Gailey was quite pleased a week before the season in announcing that Spiller was, in fact, his starter. to me, that's regarded a regression given how ineffective Spiller's been so far.

funny. this just in, Wednesday follows Tuesday. ... sorry, couldn't resist. Wednesday is generally the days most teams and QBs have their weekly press conferences. that doesn't mean Favre might or might not announce something, it's just that it's not unusual for him to be speaking today. jw

sorry, was busy banging my head against the wall that the plate -- you suggested i might have up there -- must have shifted and blocked access to a frontal lobe. and in fear of attempting to pin down your point and cause further and potentially irreversible damage, i now see that you are contradicting yourself in noting that your prediction, in fact, might not be so bold or, to quote you, 'not in the least bit.' so why, in creating your thread, did you refer to it as some sort of "bold prediction." i think many here would have characterized it as tepid at best. jw

fortunately, i get paid whether a team loses or not. but sure, it's somewhat disappointing to be covering well-trodden ground here on a team that seems to be stuck in some Groundhog Day endless loop. that said, you still have to do your job, and that means covering with professional enthusiasm what's going on, whether it's new faces, familiar quarterback changes, lowlights and highlights or even tailgating developments. the key is not losing an eye on what's news and the challenge is digging for the reasons as to why what's going on or not going is happening, and explaining it to people. the story, in some ways, might not change ... but it actually does given the new personalities that enter to change the mix. jw

i try to dispel any notion of thinking at the best of times, and yet, despite that, i still can't fathom what's considered truly bold here especially when you couch your prediction by suggesting "things could actually get worse." yes, as a matter of fact, they could. by your own account, you open the door that things may actually get better. maybe you should bold what you regard as being bold to help the rest of us. jw

you can leave, too. jw

me too! jw

like a pimple? jw

given the fact that you thought it necessary to start two threads on qbs in the span of eight hours, and acknowledged that this is really "not news to most," and then contradicted yourself in your opening paragraph by attempting to explain how you prefer one to the other but kinda maybe don't, let me then take issue with how this could at all be quantified as you put it, "a bold prediction"? scratchingmyhead-emoticon. jw

(X) 4) Beerball. jw

just spoke with Ken and filed a piece. change of heart came after Bills official contacted him on Friday. more to come once i get writing more. jw http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39246316/ns/sports-nfl/

either that, or the four of us are sheer geniuses. yah, that's the ticket. jw

i did what? geezus. jw