Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.

[Lurker]

The points with Sullivan are these:

 

Is he insightful? No. He's not a creative thinker. He doesn't make good analogies. He doesn't cross-pollinate. He's not multi-disciplinary. He doesn't bring original thoughts to the table. He does not raise the level of discussion.

 

Is he a good writer: I would say average for a newspaper guy in a medium market. He's alright.

 

Is he a good person: He's probably not a bad person. On the other hand, he's not very likeable. The indicators (what he writes about, how he writes) are not promising. A bit self-centered if you ask me. Thinks he's witty but he's not. That sort of thing.

 

JW on the other hand is a very likeable guy. Accessible, humble. Doesn't think he's a Pulitzer Prize winning writer. Works hard.

 

Are there dozens of people on this board who could do his job better than he? Yes, undoubtedly. I can't remember the last piece he did where I said, "Wow, that was well researched" or "Wow, he interviewed 3-4 people for that piece." Sully looks to me like he's mailing it in. I see more effort put into some of these posts than I do in Sully's articles.

 

How is his temperament? He goes in whichever way the wind blows. I'm trying to remember his columns from when the Bills were 5-1 in 2008. Seems to me he gets giddy in the good and morose in the bad. Seems to me he typically overreacts. If someone can conclusively correct me, I'll be happy to change this opinion.

 

Is he a voice for the community…do many Bills fans feel comfortable that Sully's opinions, positive or negative, speak for them? No, very few.

 

What are his redeeming qualities? Well, for his supporters in this thread, I guess one quality is that he's been right about the Bills sucking for the last ten years…so I guess in that regard he's been accurate.

Good response. Particularly the line about Sully's effort vs. the best TSW posters...

[Malazan]

Simply because you write a 'column' does not relieve you of journalistic responsibility.

[mpl6876]

Sullivan is not paid to cover the team. That's Mark Gaughan and Allen Wilson's job. And no, I don't think you can get the same level of analysis on this board that you can through a learned writer because, simply, professional writing is hard. Active voicing, keeping it simple. It's not as easy as you'd think, and I'm not a journalism student. And let's be honest, not everybody on here has to follow the AP style guide to make their point, but I'd rather read something that Mark Gaughan wrote than "GoBillzz5708143omglolz" did. Sorry.

 

Sullivan is paid to write opinions. That's what a columnist does. He writes about the Bills and the Sabres. He also writes personal interest stories that I don't even read because I really don't care about the women's UB rowing coach who overcame tragedy and found success. Sorry, I really don't care.

 

It's not his fault the two pro teams in this town have been pretty bad to downright awful for almost 10 years running. There are honest questions to be made about both organizations' leadership/ownership structures. Why do we as fans gets so defensive about that?

 

WE don't own the teams, or run them, or decide on their players or coaches. It's not some personal attack at us, the fan, so why do so many get so angry? He's paid to write his opinion, and almost always, its a valid, informed, skeptical one.

 

Call him out when he's wrong about something, like I did referencing the 2007 draft as "the first post-Donahoe." That's incorrect. But it seems we take his negative columns about the Bills personally. I think that's really stupid. That is all.

 

Peevo, I really agreed your post. IMHO, most Bills fans just will not accept when a journalist writes negative comments about their team. Proof being even when he is correct he receives a backlash of negative comments. (ie) Fans saying it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right...

 

I happen to agree with most of what he said. I am able to analyze what he says w/o personalizing.

Edited August 26, 2010 by mpl6876

[wardigital]

I can't stand Sullivan and in fact don't read the guy, just get subjected occasionally to his anger on the radio. He's obviously an angry, self-loathing individual. No one can be that argumentative and spiteful over something as meaningless as football unless he's wracked with his own issues, and that is definitely the case with this guy. I've said it before on this board, he's a columnist in a newspaper that doesn't rank in the top 50 in the country for readership and is in a one newspaper town. That should tell you all you need to know about his skills and ability. If he was good, he;d be somewhere else, not toiling in obscurity.

 

All that beind said, if he says our LBs suck, I'll take his back here. Poz is overrated and the rest as miscast and castoffs. Look, a LB is someone who makes an impact the first day he steps on the field. It's not a position where you need to grow and learn in the NFL. You have it or you don't. Great ones are impact players immediately. We don't have one. You can't look at them singularly as a group. They have to be measured in context with the rest of the NFl, both as a group and as individuals and both ways, they don't stack up. I see it as a weakness, not an asset.

 

 

Well I don't agree that all good newspaper writers belong to major newspapers (there are plenty of up-and-comers or small-town guys that are good), and I don't think writing for a major newspaper lends any sort of credibility to quality.

 

But Mr. Sullivan is bad at his job. It's not that he is harsh on the Bills that's the problem, it is that he's redundant, humorless and predictable. His writing is boring -- the prose is awful.

 

I'm a writer. I work with other writers. I've talked with sports journalists about Jerry Sullivan. People don't take him seriously. Not because he writes for the Buffalo News (which is the paper of record for a pretty big population of people, still) but because he's sort of a guy who shows up with the curmudgeonly scowl on his face -- who can only praise things with which he is not associated. A grass-is-always-greener type. I think with Jerry, his talent left him a long time ago with his any reasonable sensibility. There seems to be some feelings from Mr. Sullivan that he's stuck in a place where his work has no impact. This frustration seems to come out in this really awkward bitterness toward people he perceives "accept" that so-called mediocrity.

 

I also really hate his frequent and false protestations that he's not a fan. He's a basketball guy at heart and works in a non-basketball town, and I think that's part of the problem. But writing of any kind -- copywriting, technical, freelance poetry for crying out loud, is a labor of love. You don't do it unless you love it. And to write about certain subjects for this long obviously makes him a fan of those subjects. You don't write about legal and court issues for decades if you're not interested in the law and the court. You don't write about the Bills for decades if you're not interested in the Bills. This isn't a means-to-an-end, work-because-I-have-to clerical type job.

 

So I hate when guys like Sullivan or Schopp hold that over other fans heads. Not only are they fans, they are some of the biggest fans there are.

[mpl6876]

The points with Sullivan are these:

 

Is he insightful? No. He's not a creative thinker. He doesn't make good analogies. He doesn't cross-pollinate. He's not multi-disciplinary. He doesn't bring original thoughts to the table. He does not raise the level of discussion.

 

Is he a good writer: I would say average for a newspaper guy in a medium market. He's alright.

 

Is he a good person: He's probably not a bad person. On the other hand, he's not very likeable. The indicators (what he writes about, how he writes) are not promising. A bit self-centered if you ask me. Thinks he's witty but he's not. That sort of thing.

 

JW on the other hand is a very likeable guy. Accessible, humble. Doesn't think he's a Pulitzer Prize winning writer. Works hard.

 

Are there dozens of people on this board who could do his job better than he? Yes, undoubtedly. I can't remember the last piece he did where I said, "Wow, that was well researched" or "Wow, he interviewed 3-4 people for that piece." Sully looks to me like he's mailing it in. I see more effort put into some of these posts than I do in Sully's articles.

 

How is his temperament? He goes in whichever way the wind blows. I'm trying to remember his columns from when the Bills were 5-1 in 2008. Seems to me he gets giddy in the good and morose in the bad. Seems to me he typically overreacts. If someone can conclusively correct me, I'll be happy to change this opinion.

 

Is he a voice for the community…do many Bills fans feel comfortable that Sully's opinions, positive or negative, speak for them? No, very few.

 

What are his redeeming qualities? Well, for his supporters in this thread, I guess one quality is that he's been right about the Bills sucking for the last ten years…so I guess in that regard he's been accurate.

 

With all due respect, I don't agree with your post and I don't consider you an authority on the matter. Quite frankly, I have read many many many of your postings and they don't exactly scream top notch journalism.

 

I like Sully's articles and I have a difficult time refuting his accurate comments whether they are negative or not.

Edited August 26, 2010 by mpl6876

[wardigital]

Peevo, I really agreed your post. IMHO, most Bills fans just will not accept when a journalist writes negative comments about their team. Proof being even when he is correct he receives a backlash of negative comments. (ie) Fans saying it doesn't matter if he is wrong or right...

 

I happen to agree with most of what he said. I am able to analyze what he says w/o personalizing him.

 

I disagree with this totally. I think from reading this board and other boards, the majority of Bills fans accept most criticisms of the team, while taking issue with the disrespectful way in which some media covers the team. There are also plenty of media members who are down on the team who do so respectfully who I've rarely seen criticized here. Being right about something does not give someone the right to be freely vitriolic whenever they please. Look: There are times when Jerry Sullivan has been on the radio, been plainly told by a caller or radio host a factual thing (as in, the sky is blue -- inescapable fact) that counters his argument, and he will not relent. That is agenda based, and as a journalist, that makes him bad at his job.

[mpl6876]

Well I don't agree that all good newspaper writers belong to major newspapers (there are plenty of up-and-comers or small-town guys that are good), and I don't think writing for a major newspaper lends any sort of credibility to quality.

 

But Mr. Sullivan is bad at his job. It's not that he is harsh on the Bills that's the problem, it is that he's redundant, humorless and predictable. His writing is boring -- the prose is awful.

 

I'm a writer. I work with other writers. I've talked with sports journalists about Jerry Sullivan. People don't take him seriously. Not because he writes for the Buffalo News (which is the paper of record for a pretty big population of people, still) but because he's sort of a guy who shows up with the curmudgeonly scowl on his face -- who can only praise things with which he is not associated. A grass-is-always-greener type. I think with Jerry, his talent left him a long time ago with his any reasonable sensibility. There seems to be some feelings from Mr. Sullivan that he's stuck in a place where his work has no impact. This frustration seems to come out in this really awkward bitterness toward people he perceives "accept" that so-called mediocrity.

 

I also really hate his frequent and false protestations that he's not a fan. He's a basketball guy at heart and works in a non-basketball town, and I think that's part of the problem. But writing of any kind -- copywriting, technical, freelance poetry for crying out loud, is a labor of love. You don't do it unless you love it. And to write about certain subjects for this long obviously makes him a fan of those subjects. You don't write about legal and court issues for decades if you're not interested in the law and the court. You don't write about the Bills for decades if you're not interested in the Bills. This isn't a means-to-an-end, work-because-I-have-to clerical type job.

 

So I hate when guys like Sullivan or Schopp hold that over other fans heads. Not only are they fans, they are some of the biggest fans there are.

 

I happen to respect the man's articles and work. As a fan, I am eager to read his article's and listen to his opinion's because they "ring truth to my ears." IMHO, the man is spot on with his criticism of the Bills. I respect his forthright honesty and it never gets old to me. It doesn't get old because things haven't changed much in last ten years or so. Maybe, you are not aware of the Bills past performances? Maybe, Jerry can get some new material when things change around one bills drive. Until then, I will continue to support what Jerry has to say. In journalism, I thought speaking the truth went a long way. Personally, I could care less about whether he is a basketball guy, a SOB, a unhappy man, or the journalist caught in the wrong job, etc...All I know is the man speaks truth in an industry which often doesn't.

 

Jerry, if your listening you keep on speaking the truth and I will keep on reading it.

 

Larry Felser I miss you...

Edited August 26, 2010 by mpl6876

[wardigital]

I happen to respect the man's articles and work. As a fan, I am eager to read his article's and listen to his opinion's because they "ring truth to my ears." IMHO, the man is spot on with his criticism of the Bills. I respect his forthright honesty and it never gets old to me. It doesn't get old because things haven't changed much in last ten years or so. Maybe, you are not aware of the Bills past performances? Maybe, Jerry can get some new material when things change around one bills drive. Until then, I will continue to support what Jerry has to say. In journalism, I thought speaking the truth went a long way. Personally, I could care less about whether he is a basketball guy, a SOB, a unhappy man, or the journalist caught in the wrong job, etc...All I know is the man speaks truth in an industry which often doesn't.

 

Jerry, if your listening you keep on speaking the truth and I will keep on reading it.

 

Well, the thing is, you're not really the arbiter of what is and isn't the truth. So there are many instances in which I don't think he's speaking the truth, necessarily. Different strokes for different folks, naturally. You're entitled to enjoy him every bit as much as those of us who don't enjoy him.

 

Jerry, if you're reading this, do yourself and your paper and your community a favor and call it a career. There are plenty of reporters out there who I am sure are hungry and ready to do twice the work that you do...

[bluenews]

London Fletcher is the best downfield tackler in the NFL!!

[mpl6876]

I disagree with this totally. I think from reading this board and other boards, the majority of Bills fans accept most criticisms of the team, while taking issue with the[/b] disrespectful way in which some media covers the team. There are also plenty of media members who are down on the team who do so respectfully who I've rarely seen criticized here. Being right about something does not give someone the right to be freely vitriolic whenever they please. Look: There are times when Jerry Sullivan has been on the radio, been plainly told by a caller or radio host a factual thing (as in, the sky is blue -- inescapable fact) that counters his argument, and he will not relent. That is agenda based, and as a journalist, that makes him bad at his job.

 

Really, I read the Sully article and I didn't see one once of disrespectful journalism. Yet, he got slammed to no end on this thread. Interesting...

[CosmicBills]

I disagree with this totally. I think from reading this board and other boards, the majority of Bills fans accept most criticisms of the team, while taking issue with the disrespectful way in which some media covers the team. There are also plenty of media members who are down on the team who do so respectfully who I've rarely seen criticized here. Being right about something does not give someone the right to be freely vitriolic whenever they please. Look: There are times when Jerry Sullivan has been on the radio, been plainly told by a caller or radio host a factual thing (as in, the sky is blue -- inescapable fact) that counters his argument, and he will not relent. That is agenda based, and as a journalist, that makes him bad at his job.

He's a columnist, meaning he writes his opinion. He's supposed to have an agenda, that's the point. As a writer, you should know the difference.

[JohnC]

Well, the thing is, you're not really the arbiter of what is and isn't the truth. So there are many instances in which I don't think he's speaking the truth, necessarily. Different strokes for different folks, naturally. You're entitled to enjoy him every bit as much as those of us who don't enjoy him.

 

Jerry, if you're reading this, do yourself and your paper and your community a favor and call it a career. There are plenty of reporters out there who I am sure are hungry and ready to do twice the work that you do...

 

Your views on Sullivan are very intriguing and well thought out and expressed. You make some good observations about JS that it appears that he has become a frustrated reporter stuck in a second tier market. I have a somewhat different take on him. He has stated on numerous occasions that he does like the Buffalo area and he believes that it has a lot to offer. He was asked on more than a couple occasions on his on-line exchanges if he would like to go back to the Boston area and be based out of New England. He said no. He elaborated that he is entrenched and invested in the area and that he has come to appreciate what it has to offer.

 

I think the source of Sullivan's vitriol toward the Bills' organization is that he believes that the owner has taken advantage of a very loyal fanbase. He has had a relatively in-side view of a very second rate organization. You get the sense that he feels that he and the fanbase have been cheated out of participating in following what should be a very fun endeavor.

 

Allen Wilson has reported on the Bills for the Buffalo News during their decade long malaise. In his own way you also get the sense that he is being worn out following this much ignored NFL franchise. Recognizing that the Bills, a team he is paid to follow, probably will never be a serious franchise as long as the shadow of the current owner still falls on it has to take some juice out of you . Allen Wilson's personality is much more subdued and mellow than Sullivan's more pugnacious personality. However, covering the same dysfunctional organization on a long term basis does have an affect on how one responds.

Edited August 26, 2010 by JohnC

[Kelly the Dog]

Allen Wilson has reported on the Bills for the Buffalo News during their decade long malaise. In his own way you also get the sense that he is being worn out following this much ignored NFL franchise. Recognizing that the Bills, a team he is paid to follow, probably will never be a serious franchise as long as the shadow of the current owner still falls on it has to take some juice out of you . Allen Wilson's personality is much more subdued and mellow than Sullivan's more pugnacious personality. However, covering the same dysfunctional organization on a long term basis does have an affect on how one responds.

Wilson's job seems to be much, much more of a reporter than a columnist, and totally different animal.

[sabres...yawn]

Sully's at it again?

You mean telling the truth?

 

Deal with it.

[Rico]

With all due respect, I don't agree with your post and I don't consider you an authority on the matter. Quite frankly, I have read many many many of your postings and they don't exactly scream top notch journalism.

 

I like Sully's articles and I have a difficult time refuting his accurate comments whether they are negative or not.

[wardigital]

He's a columnist, meaning he writes his opinion. He's supposed to have an agenda, that's the point. As a writer, you should know the difference.

 

Having an opinion does not mean having an agenda. Having an opinion requires evaluating the facts and making an informed decision on those facts. As a newspaper writer, he would generally have access to certain kinds of knowledge that his readers would not. Having an agenda means that he is pushing a particular theme, over the course of several pieces, which works outside his opinion, or fact, to establish that agenda.

 

As someone who communicates in English, you should understand the difference.

[mpl6876]

Having an opinion does not mean having an agenda. Having an opinion requires evaluating the facts and making an informed decision on those facts. As a newspaper writer, he would generally have access to certain kinds of knowledge that his readers would not. Having an agenda means that he is pushing a particular theme, over the course of several pieces, which works outside his opinion, or fact, to establish that agenda.

 

As someone who communicates in English, you should understand the difference.

 

As an outsider to the journalism field, I ask can't the two inter twine? I would think the two don't have to be separate entities?

[wardigital]

Your views on Sullivan are very intriguing and well thought out and expressed. You make some good observations about JS that it appears that he has become a frustrated reporter stuck in a second tier market. I have a somewhat different take on him. He has stated on numerous occasions that he does like the Buffalo area and he believes that it has a lot to offer. He was asked on more than a couple occasions on his on-line exchanges if he would like to go back to the Boston area and be based out of New England. He said no. He elaborated that he is entrenched and invested in the area and that he has come to appreciate what it has to offer.

 

I think the source of Sullivan's vitriol toward the Bills' organization is that he believes that the owner has taken advantage of a very loyal fanbase. He has had a relatively in-side view of a very second rate organization. You get the sense that he feels that he and the fanbase have been cheated out of participating in following what should be a very fun endeavor.

 

Allen Wilson has reported on the Bills for the Buffalo News during their decade long malaise. In his own way you also get the sense that he is being worn out following this much ignored NFL franchise. Recognizing that the Bills, a team he is paid to follow, probably will never be a serious franchise as long as the shadow of the current owner still falls on it has to take some juice out of you . Allen Wilson's personality is much more subdued and mellow than Sullivan's more pugnacious personality. However, covering the same dysfunctional organization on a long term basis does have an affect on how one responds.

one abou

John --

 

Fair points. This is all, of course, a matter of opinion. Whatever you or I say. I would suggest though, that Wilson has gone about this in such a way as to not sacrifice the respect of a large chunk of his readership, or to do with the topic as maliciously as Sullivan. That probably also lends him some more leeway. Hammer hard, get hammered hard.

[billsfan89]

The Bills LBs were no better last year so what's his point? We can't draft 50 players. We signed two FA LBs. You can't overhaul every position in one year. Sometimes you have to hope the players you have can be coached up.

 

PTR

 

See the thing is we did overhaul the position. We pretty much converted all of our DE's to OLB's (Maybin, Kelsay, Ellis) and signed some vets in free agency (Torbor and Davis) as well as change the position of another established guy (Mitchel) there are only 2 prominent LB's from last years staff on the roster in meaningful positions (Poz and Mitchel) and only one is playing the position he played last year and he is our best LB Poz.

 

All in all we have done a overhaul of the position. Yes we didn't make any flashy moves but we made a lot of solid ones and a fundamental change in philosophy that will hopefully work.

[JohnC]

Wilson's job seems to be much, much more of a reporter than a columnist, and totally different animal.

 

There is no doubt about it that their roles are different. As you noted Wilson is more of a reporter and Sullivan is a columnist. The point I was making was that following this long term floundering team does have a withering impact on the reporters/columnists as it does on its fanbase.

Edited August 26, 2010 by JohnC