Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 If those sources had to go on the record, they wouldn't make those statements. I see it all the time when I am interviewing players, coached and administrators. They will tell me a lot of things, but they refuse to go on the record. If they had to go on the record, they would never make most of the statements. In other words, no one's willing to back up their words?
The Poojer Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 heck, PFW doesnt even put any names on that by line(Posted Jan. 25, 2010 @ 5:13 a.m. By PFW staff), seems not too many people want to back up their words in this specific instance.... In other words, no one's willing to back up their words?
lets_go_bills Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 I logged in at work just to post this....I mean...WOW! http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/01/2...ms-start-at-top Finally somebody confirms the Brandon power grab I've been talking about since the day they promoted him/Nix. Ralph wanted Lynch??? Nix is viewed as a joke around the league, wonderful. This team is such a mess. That's a good, in-depth article that explains a lot. To sum up, the Bills won't be good until Ralph dies and this team is run by an owner who stays out of personnel decisions and trusts a football guy to run his operation without interference. Look at the Colts. Bill Polian is President and it's his show. He is the one guy in charge. Irsay just signs the checks. He allows Polian to do what he wants and the end result is a football team built in his vision. One that contends every single year. Our only hope is to catch lightning in a bottle. Somehow.
Cornerville Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Now some of you understand why I created this screename. The truth hurts.
Lori Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 In other words, no one's willing to back up their words? In other words ... yes, people absolutely DO change when they see you turn on the recorder or start taking notes.
dave mcbride Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 In other words, no one's willing to back up their words? It happens all of the time. Without anonymous sourcing, we'd have far less information available. Perhaps the most famous quote from a Bush administration official was anonymous: In an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article, writer Ron Suskind quoted an unnamed aide to George W. Bush: The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Packerland Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Ralph wanted Lynch??? I've heard that before. Lynch was picked over Revis because of Wilson's preference for taking skill position players first.
todd Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 At the same time we have Bill Cowher, Jerry Jones and Dan Reeves all saying Gailey is great. Who will you believe, unnamed sources from an article or those three REAL football guys? The comments on Nix being a buffoon smack of sour grapes to me. I also find it odd that other meddlesome owners (Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder) aren't spoken of in the same way. Also - I could give a crap about what Nix says in a PC or what his accent is like. If he starts winning, I'm happy. Until then I'll give the benefit of the doubt. The stuff on Ralph is disconcerting. He has proven he can win with a good GM. If he pushed for Marshawn to be drafted, so be it. We should all remember that Marshawn did make the pro-bowl and had two 1,000 yard seasons. He's a punk and he sucked this year, but he did produce those first two years. However, he needs to know when to pull back and let the football guys made decisions. We'll see what happens. Yikes!! Not anything we didn't already know, but to hear personnel directors say what they say is bracing. I realize that many here will criticize the piece because people didn't go on record, but when you say that sort of stuff, you simply can't go on record.
todd Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Oh yeah, and the article says it was written by PFW staff. So the author wouldn't even use his or her name. Credibility, anyone?
Mike in Syracuse Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 So an article written by "Staff" that quotes a "league personnel evaluator" as a source is worth discussing. Journalism on the intarweb continues to boggle me. I wonder what the chances are that the "personnel evaluator" quoted was John Guy?
BillsfaninSixburgh Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 If those sources had to go on the record, they wouldn't make those statements. I see it all the time when I am interviewing players, coached and administrators. They will tell me a lot of things, but they refuse to go on the record. If they had to go on the record, they would never make most of the statements. Thanks for making my point in two ways: 1) If the unnamed source won't go on the record, then they shouldn't bother saying it. 2) If they still say it, then as a reporter why report it unless you are willing to cite your source for verification and credibility purposes? Especially on the topic of sports. I thought "off the record" meant just that. Keep the quote out of the record. I can see the need for unnamed sources in some situations like crimes, but this is just football!! (Oh I know, some people claim Bills football is criminal!) I guess I'm old school. As we used to say, "just 'cuz everone does it, doesn't make it right". And for the record, despite the "unnamed sources", I agree with the point the article is trying to make. Anyone who has followed either team in recent years could draw those conclusions even without the expert opinion of all those unnamed sources. My point is - is there any real journalism anymore? Or should everything out there be taken with a grain of salt. When NBC News considers the The DailyBeast a credible news source (see this morning Today Show latest on Tiger Woods news), I can only say, "let the buyer (or reader) beware!"
dave mcbride Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 Thanks for making my point in two ways: 1) If the unnamed source won't go on the record, then they shouldn't bother saying it. 2) If they still say it, then as a reporter why report it unless you are willing to cite your source for verification and credibility purposes? Especially on the topic of sports. I thought "off the record" meant just that. Keep the quote out of the record. I can see the need for unnamed sources in some situations like crimes, but this is just football!! (Oh I know, some people claim Bills football is criminal!) I guess I'm old school. As we used to say, "just 'cuz everone does it, doesn't make it right". And for the record, despite the "unnamed sources", I agree with the point the article is trying to make. Anyone who has followed either team in recent years could draw those conclusions even without the expert opinion of all those unnamed sources. My point is - is there any real journalism anymore? Or should everything out there be taken with a grain of salt. When NBC News considers the The DailyBeast a credible news source (see this morning Today Show latest on Tiger Woods news), I can only say, "let the buyer (or reader) beware!" Without unnamed sources, there wouldn't have been a Watergate. The Watergate story is about as old school as it gets.
gobillsinytown Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Yikes!! Not anything we didn't already know, but to hear personnel directors say what they say is bracing. I realize that many here will criticize the piece because people didn't go on record, but when you say that sort of stuff, you simply can't go on record. I understand that they can't go on record, but it seems to me that any real professional would not offer his opinions that way, even if he felt that way. There are a lot of strong personalities in the NFL, so there's going to be personality conflicts. Once again, I still don't understand this obsession with who is the worst team in the league, and why it matters: The "bottom" teams in the league: Bills St. Louis Cleveland Oakland Seattle Tampa Bay Kansas City Washington So, what makes Buffalo worse than the others? None of the teams at the bottom, with MAYBE the exception of Detroit, are showing any immediate upside. Here's the reality: If the Bills start winning, all media coverage will immediately start shifting. It's amazing how short everyeone's memories are.
prissythecat Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Without unnamed sources, there wouldn't have been a Watergate. The Watergate story is about as old school as it gets. You can't compare Watergate to football. Thats apples and oranges.
Acantha Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Without unnamed sources, there wouldn't have been a Watergate. The Watergate story is about as old school as it gets. And he did actually say that using unnamed sources for crimes is a different story. I have to agree. Almost nothing in the media these days is sourced and it has led to god awful sports coverage. All of the reporters on here can argue all they want about how things are out there, but there's no denying the fact that almost everything put out is random stories with no real facts or substance. That may be the way things are in today's reporting world, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's good material.
dave mcbride Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 You can't compare Watergate to football. Thats apples and oranges. You're right.
Doc Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 I'm sure the sources believe in what they said. But as I showed, they contradicted each other for the most part. And IIRC, PFW ran an article after Nix was hired that railed on the Bills for not giving the job to one of the young up-and-comers on other teams, who seemed to be friends of the "source." So take that FWIW.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 This article shows how Ralph and Al continue to retain the title the "foolish" gang while the others have moved on. However the article fails to discuss two other Meddlers Snyder ( worse than the bills ) and Jones??
BillsfaninSixburgh Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Without unnamed sources, there wouldn't have been a Watergate. The Watergate story is about as old school as it gets. More on The Daily Beast coverage of Tiger's woes. The Beast cites two unnamed friends if Elin Woods as saying that Elin found texts on Tiger's cell phone from one of his mistresses. Well I just spoke with six unnamed fans of Tiger who say it was all a prank that Tiger was planning to play on Elise and have Ashton Kucther jump out and yell "You've Just Been Punk'ed" on national TV. There, now that the truth has finally come out.....TIGER PLEASE COME BACK TO GOLF!!!!! Now that's journalism at its best!
KRC Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 In other words ... yes, people absolutely DO change when they see you turn on the recorder or start taking notes. It's amazing how that works, isn't it?
Recommended Posts