JohnC

The Bills were not considered a serious organization because of the subpar performances on the field for a generation. The product on the field spoke for itself. No reporting whether by sheepish hometown reporters or harsh critics could hide how the team performed.

I'm referring to Marrone and Malarky. Marrone had a clause that gave him an exit with a set amount of money if he chose to exercise it by a certain time.

The Bills had two HCs in recent history preferring to take buyouts rather than continue on with their jobs. That certainly wasn't a testament to a well oiled organizational machine.

What I find interesting is that these two curmudgeons draw a disproportionate visceral response from their readers. If they are poor writers or their negative attitudes are so tiresome or unappealing there is a simple solution: Don't read their stories. There are more than enough fawning reporters who write glowing stories on the franchises that have struggled for a generation or so. So two contrarian voices consistently write critical pieces, very often warranted and sometimes not, in a capacity filled room with prostrating reporters. So what! You can't handle the against the stream view? Very often with these two acidic individuals the point is meaningful but the delivery is excessively antagonistic that it crowds out the valid point. I often read op ed pieces from a couple of newspapers. There are columnists that I read and some that I don't. There are columnists that I strenuously disagree with but read their columns because they are well written and incisive. Getting a different perspective is very often more illuminating than just reading columns that you agree with. I have no criticism for anyone who doesn't like these reporters. What I find befuddling is the degree that these individuals bother people when the obvious solution is to ignore them. There seems to be a relishing of venomous responses to them that I find odd.

Thanks for the link. When a reporter crosses a line, deliberately or not, they should be held accountable. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. In their business you have to properly attribute your story. Sometimes deliberately and sometimes not it is not properly done. Then that transgression needs to be addressed.

I don't consider myself a hater. I'm not even a stalwart supporter of either reporter. What I disagree with is the demonizing of these reporters because they are critics of the teams they covered. There are more than enough wallflowers covering these two franchises that have struggled for a generation. What I find unfair is because they are contrarians in a room overflowing with ass kissers they get singled out and vilified. If one disagrees with what they write then disagree. This cause to rile up the mob because they don't follow the company line is what I find objectionable.

in any large corporate setting with bosses and employees you are going to have conflicts and mistakes. It's not only the nature of the workplace but also life. Employees make judgments and sometimes make mistakes. Bosses review actions and make judgments with respect to the actions in question. If you are expecting a pristine workplace with everyone getting along and supporting one another then you are being unrealistic. Unions and management are often at odds. What's so surprising about that? Especially in a business with a tremendous amount of financial stress you are going to have this push/pull and sometimes very antagonistic relationships. You may be surprised with the fact that unions stick up on the side of their members and bosses act as agents for the company but I'm not. There is nothing abnormal about these conflicts where at times one side has the advantage and in other times the other side ends up with the advantage. Speaking for myself your post makes as much sense as you very often claiming that the fans are very much responsible for how the team has performed. Your post is utter nonsense.

Thank you. Some people are only comfortable with cheerleaders. I certainly didn't always agree with Sullivan but I understand where he was coming from. He wasn't the most tolerant and patient reporter covering the franchises but he had a good reason not to be.

If you are a reporter and management puts you on the shelf not allowing your column or stories to be posted what do you call that? If your job is to write for the newspaper or be on TV but your bosses say that you basically don't have a function then how would you categorize that action by management? Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he considered the situation untenable. That was the point of management's action.

I wasn't clear. He had a contract. If they wanted to put him on the shelf they had to still honor his contract unless there was a just cause. Jerry Sullivan took a buyout because he lost his column.

I don't know what you are referring to. I did a search but couldn't come up with the McKissic plagiarizing issue. I'm not saying you are wrong but I couldn't find anything about it. On the other hand if the BN wanted to fire Jerry Sullivan they could have done it any time they wanted to do. That is not to say that if he had a contract they still would have been obligated to honor it unless there was a just cause basis not to do so.

The BN could have fired him anytime they wanted to regardless what the guild thought. So what? Bill Polian is a HOF GM. But he had a volatile temper especially when challenged. So he got challenged and reacted and vice a versa. What's so unusual about a media member in any town questioning those involved in running a franchise in any sport? What did you expect him to do, kneel?

Jerry lasted for 29 years with the BN. That is a pretty long run. His longevity was not based on his lack of competency.

I reread your response and what to clarify my response. I have never claimed that his negativity had anything to do with the performance of teams. What I have said is that the systemic failure of the pro teams certainly influenced his writing, as it should.

I don't recall him being negative during the Polian era? He may have been but I don't remember it to be so.

The problem with covering the Bills and Sabres (to a lesser extent) is not only were they not good for an extended period of time but they were poorly run organizations. That's not theory---it was the reality of covering these teams. The teams that he often covered were pro teams that had little to no chance of being serious teams. Covering teams that were mostly out of realistic contention before the season even started has to influence one's attitude when covering the teams.

During the major period of time when he covered the Bills the team was not only bad but poorly run. You don't have to be a sports columnist to recognize that.

Sullivan covered two teams that were generationally bad. Of course he was more of a scathing critic than a giddy cheerleader. When franchises are so bad for so long in a cap system which is supposed to promote parity did you expect him to extol the competencies of those running the respective franchises? Acid Jerry has covered a lot of sports for a long time. He knows what a well run organization looks like, and he has been at the doorstep of franchises that were not only badly run but were weirdly run. With the Bills he watched the out of touch owner hire Levy, Brandon (as a short term rescue GM) and Nix followed by Whaley as GMs. You don't think that type of consecutive hires wouldn't make you a cynical observer? Then the new owner came into town and with a grand flourish he watched Rex being hired. Does anyone expect him or any credible reporter to give an opinion that this new ownership was bringing in a breath of fresh air and putting this bedraggled franchise on the right track? Where I agree with some critics of Sullivan was that he was not much a fan of pro football and hockey. His favorite sports were basketball and baseball. He seemed to be more animated when discussing his favored sports over his less favored sports. Where I give him credit compared to some of the other toads in the media was that he was not a fawning reporter. He was not afraid to stand up and be the critic in the room. Did he go too far or get too tiresome at that role? I honestly have to say yes. But in general, I liked him because he was willing not only to write the critical column but he was willing to stand up in the room, face to face, and ask his hard nosed questions. Many people are uncomfortable with that contrary display while I am not.

Just maybe I misheard what people were calling me when they were actually saying that I was a bad turd?

I am so low a character that I am not worthy of apologies. Rarely does someone call me a good sir, however many people call me a bastard. I take no offense. ?

You are astute, perspicacious and adroit.?

You are not an accomplished gossiper! Toughen up and be bold. In the world of professional gossip unfairly smearing is not only allowed but it is encouraged. If it's not your reputation why should you care? ?

I'm clueless. Give me a hint as to who is the sensitive diva among the unruly rabble?

I have a different take on Nix's delaying in getting a qb. He was simply inept. He had an outdated philosophy of believing that you build up the roster before adding a qb instead of getting one when the opportunity exists. When you hire an old time scout ill equipped to be a GM there shouldn't be much surprise when the GM falters.

This regime starting with McDermott felt that it was better to wait for the next draft class rather than select from the prior class. Maybe it was mostly due to the fact that McDermottt just took over and still was working with the Whaley regime that was going to be replaced. Contrast that more calculated approach than the Nix approach who was determined to draft a qb in the Manuel draft class in which none of the qbs in that class were ranked very high. What was obviously apparent was that Nix was determined to come out of that class with a qb regardless how good the class was. My problem was not in the drafting of Manuel as it was selecting a third or fourth round graded qb in the first round. It was an ill-conceived reach that set this franchise back. There is certainly no guarantee that Allen is going to be a franchise qb but it was still a reasonable selection.