Kelly the Dog

As if there weren't enough good reasons to root for this guy.

Not sure if there is a good chance it holds up. But very good chance that it holds a lot.

By all means, IMO, you should avoid a restaurant if you believe that the Chef is racist and anti-Semitic. Talk about hyperbole. I was talking about simple differences of opinion or thin skin that have nothing to do with the job. The Harvey Weinstein case had everything to do with his job. I agree that the particular example that you used may have been entirely unwarranted, although like "Danny" McBride said above, I would like to know more about behind the scenes of it before I pass judgment. Something is atwitter there. But no one who is arguing either way is basing it on that tweet. People have been jumping all over TG since before he was a member here for his thin skin and personality outside of his writing skills.

To be a crappy anything is a cush gig. To be good at anything is pretty hard. But that's okay to disagree. You are and always have been one of my very favorite people on here for a couple decades, and we don't agree on hardly anything. Cheers!

So you go to crappy restaurants because the Chef's political leanings mirror yours instead of good restaurants where they don't? You buy clearly inferior songs or movies because the artists think offscreen the way you do and ignore ones you like a lot more because of artists that think things differently than you in their spare time. You hire plumbers based on their party associations? That sounds like a VERY good idea.

I understand that but it is always when someone tweets to him first, 99% going after him. Then he ups the ante. I don't call that "using his feed to disseminate his BN" work - as a personal criticism - when he simply supplies links to his stories. That is what he is supposed to do.

I'm curious as to how. I have all of the News guys and jw and Lori and the Rochester guys and anyone who covers the Bills or Sabres anywhere on my Twitter feed, and I spend a lot of (read: way too much) time on Twitter - and while I see him trade barbs and go full Hannity on people at times, almost always because they start it, I don't see it as an extension of his journalism, even if he is commenting on something to do with writing or journalism or the Bills anymore than what Shady's twitter feed is an extension of his position of running back even if he's tweeting about a player or the NFL. I didn't see him taking an ESPN gig. He left the News years ago for an ESPN gig, later went to Miami I think and then back to the Bills. But I haven't seen that he has a new job yet.

I'm still trying to figure out how that bleeds into his stories on the Bills. I know it does, I'm just trying to figure out why people conflate those two things so much. Don't like him as a person or twitter persona. I get it. Shout it here and from the rooftops and right back at him on twitter (which will immediately get under his skin). But why does that have anything to do with what he writes in the News. Put it this way, if Jerry Sullivan didn't have a byline that said "By Jerry Sullivan" at the top, you and most everyone here could make a good case to say, "That's Jerry Sullivan!" because his voice and persona can be seen in his stories. He's a columnist. If Tim Graham didn't have a byline that said "By Tim Graham" pretty much the only way you could legitimately come on here and yell "That's Tim Graham!" would be because it was rather well written.

There are a ton of teachers and there are a ton of good teachers, and it's a hard job. There are a ton of carpenters and there are a ton of good carpenters, and it's a hard job. There are a ton of politicians but there are relatively few good politicians, and it is a hard job. There are a ton of sportswriters but there are relatively few good sportswriters, and it is a hard job. Graham is good at his job, which is a hard job, and which there are relatively few who do it consistently well, regardless of whether you hate him for his personality.

It shouldn't be, and if you are taking it that way then that is your problem and not his, unless you are critiquing his tweet that is an evaluation of a sports issue, and not an exchange with fans. Granted, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on they are not completely the same - the chef and the sportswriter - because the Chef's job of cooking has zero to do with typing words on Twitter. But it is the same thing because if a sportswriter is typing things on twitter it should be construed the same way the Chef's exchange with his fan base or customers or random obnoxious crapthrowers is: Nothing to do with how well he does his job.

See above. Sure, a lot of people can get jobs. No, there are not a lot of good ones because it is actually a very hard job to do. There are a ton of TV writing jobs and TV jobs as a whole. There are not a ton of good TV shows because they are hard to make.

It's not as easy a job as people think. It's like being an NFL analyst on games. It's almost impossible to think of one that everyone likes because it's so hard to do well consistently and please wildly disparate audiences with wildly disparate wants and needs and knowledge base.

Sal is a very good sports radio personality, seems like a terrific guy in all respects, and knows a ton about football. He's not a good sportswriter at all. They are almost mutually exclusive talents.

Yep. Play outside and not the slot. When you are a scumbag, you change best buddies on whims. It's entirely possible that Daboll is his best buddy for a few months and then, say, Kim Jong Un.

You and I are on the same side of the vast majority of things over the years and I respect your opinion and it's obviously okay to disagree on virtually anything. I don't get, however, the idea that his snark makes him a bad person deep down. Don Rickles was known as one of the best and nicest guys. And I know you are not saying that all snarkers are like Tim or just because you are snarky you are a bad guy deep down. But his particular brand of snark never made me think he was a bad guy. Thin skinned, sure. Carry on.

That explains everything. ?

Fair enough. Hope you don't get fired at your job because the boss thinks this is ridiculous, which of course has zero to do with job performance.

I'll ask again, do you consider the Chef's twitter feed when he is cooking you dinner? Do you consider an actor's politics when he or she are performing in a movie or TV show? Do you consider a politician's favorite team when you discuss their politics? Take what he writes for the article's merit. There was nothing of Tim Graham's snarkiness in his terrific five part series on Josh Allen's roots. Zero point zero.

No it's not. It's easy. Do you watch a movie and consider an actor's political views as to whether you like the performance or not?

That actually sucks. Tim was and is a very good sportswriter. People here conflate his twitter and TSW persona with his professional skills.

Three reasons. He is 1) rewarding Nate in front of his teammates to show what doing all the rights things (training, film work, being great guy/citizen/teammate will get you, 2) combined with having Josh beat out both guys right in front of his teammates for a legitimate winning of the job versus just having handed it to him, and 3) showing Josh just the right way to do things to be a pro, which Nate does. Nate is a great guy and teammate and has a lot of stuff going for him to make a great NFL quarterback, he just also has a couple of killer deficiencies that prevent him from even being a legitimate one.

Then how can you criticize the comment that until we see him do it under live bullets we won't know? You want it both ways.

There is a new Checkers?! I heard Fran had to close the legendary one down a while back. I think it’s 50-50 he starts game one, or within the first few.

A quarterback with all of the deficiencies that Gunner lays out CAN look great in OTAs because none of those deficiencies are exposed because it’s not played at game speed, with real pressure from the D.

But Gunner watched a lot of tape on him in his college career and gives serious, reasoned critiques based on actual performance, and not just he's no good because I think he's no good.