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

[8-8 Forever?]

He's like a Journalist Troll. He says stuff that will get people riled up, talking and most importantly to him ... reading. Disregard.

 

I agree with Sully, we did the best we could getting some 2nd tier guys who could step in to the 3 - 4, but these are not our starting LBs 3 years from now. Not even close. All we can hope for is they mostly stay healthy and competent all year. that will have to do for this year. no magic from that group..

 

I think the basic issue with Sullivan is that he doesn't seem to like the NFL very much, and as a consequence he isn't willing to do the legwork -- interviews, behind the scences stuff, etc. -- that good columnists (not reporters, mind you) do. Here, I'm thinking of the Cowboys' writers, Will McDonogh of old, Mark Cannizaro, Don Banks back in the day when he was with the Minnesota paper, and yes, Joe Posnanski. Hence he never really offers any new info. The one person who he does have a bit of access to (or had, to be more accurate) is Wilson, who used to occasionally speak with Sully. He doesn't seem to have that access anymore, and he has alluded to it.

 

Do I think that Sully has the capability to be a better columnist? Sure; he seems like a fairly intelligent person to me. However, it's very clear to me at least that he *far* prefers baseball and basketball (especially college ball - Providence College in particular) to football. He writes with real passion about these sports, while football feels like it's an assignment with him. He doesn't know that much about the sport after all of these years, and his opinions are both obvious and received wisdom. He's said on more than one occasion on GR that it's not the team that he cares about, but the long suffering fans. Basically, I think that if Buffalo had ever gotten a baseball team, he'd be a happier person. And I think his talents would be on display. He seems to know more about those sports. Just as importantly, it seems as if he *wants* to know more about those sports.

 

By the way, his negativity in general is very apparent in his q & a's with fans. Being the Bills columnist appears to have taken an emotional toll on him.

 

If I covered and had to actually write columns on the bills for the past 10 years, I'd be insane by now.. or I would cope and tell it like it is, which Sully does. Maybe to an extreme, but he is generally on point, whether the average in the tank Bills fan likes it or not. The Bills suck and will generally get blasted by most teams they play this year. Sorry, but that is what will happen, barring an injury-free and turnover plus ++ season (like the one the phins had a couple years ago).

[tennesseeboy]

I'm missing something here. I haven't thought our linebackers were bad, and we should consider it is a new defensive scheme and folks are playing in positions they are learning. I think talentwise they are pretty good, and by the time the season rolls around (soon!) they will be be gelling. Look for significant improvement through the first couple of games of the regular season. Hopefully a clock eating running game will give us lots of Time of Possession and points to counter the learning curve.

[stony]

I agree with Sully, we did the best we could getting some 2nd tier guys who could step in to the 3 - 4, but these are not our starting LBs 3 years from now. Not even close. All we can hope for is they mostly stay healthy and competent all year. that will have to do for this year. no magic from that group..

 

 

 

If I covered and had to actually write columns on the bills for the past 10 years, I'd be insane by now.. or I would cope and tell it like it is, which Sully does. Maybe to an extreme, but he is generally on point, whether the average in the tank Bills fan likes it or not. The Bills suck and will generally get blasted by most teams they play this year. Sorry, but that is what will happen, barring an injury-free and turnover plus ++ season (like the one the phins had a couple years ago).

 

Sully is not on the beat anymore, though. He's a columnist and for the most part gets to decide what he wants to write about. I actually agree with a lot of what he says and like that he goes out of the way to talk about college sports and such. However, going insane because you have to cover the Bill's is a convienent excuse to be perpetually negative.

[JohnC]

As I've already stated, criticizing the Bills is like shooting fish in a barrel. It takes zero skill, to do it the way Sullivan does it.

 

I take no offense to criticism of the Bills. It's how skillful that criticism is.

 

I thought that this was a discussion about Jerry Sullivan's "performance" for a man of his specific profession.

 

So his supporters claim that he's been right most of the time. Does that make him insightful? Is he doing anything as a professional columnist that many people here couldn't do better?

 

Repeating what LV-Bills noted that you don't have to be insightful covering the Bills because the organization is frightfully inept. This isn't merely a cycle of ineptitude; it is institutional.

 

Jerry Sullivan's commentary has been the same because the level of performance on the field and within the organization is consistently shamefully bad. For those who cover the franchise and whose job it is to render "opinions" it would be abnormal not to escalate one's contempt for such a detached and dysfunctional organization.

 

There's a disconnect going on in this discussion. Like two sides arguing two different things.

 

 

I respectfully disagree that there is a disconnect going on in this discussion. The tenor of the commentary of those paid to give their opinions (JS) on the franchise is directly related to the long standing debacle within the organization and on the field. This institutional futility is occurring in a system designed for parity. How ridiculous is that? How can one not render a harsh response to such an aloof owner and organization?

 

Mike Schopp criticizes the Bills on a regular basis. Does that make him accurate and insightful?

 

Mike Schopp is in a category of his own. Where is the logic of hiring a sports radio host who proudly states that he doesn't like most sports? If there is a more arrogant and condescending person on radio I haven't heard one yet. Jerry Sulllivan comes off as a likeable rogue compared to this twit.

Edited August 27, 2010 by JohnC

[stony]

Repeating what LV-Bills noted that you don't have to be insightful covering the Bills because the organization is frightfully inept. This isn't merely a cycle of ineptitude; it is institutional.

 

Jerry Sullivan's commentary has been the same because the level of performance on the field and within the organization is consistently shamefully bad. For those who cover the franchise and whose job it is to render "opinions" it would be abnormal not to escalate one's contempt for such a detached and dysfunctional organization.

 

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree that there is a disconnect going on in this discussion. The tenor of the commentary of those paid to give their opinions (JS) on the franchise is directly related to the long standing debacle within the organization and on the field. This institutional futility is occurring in a system designed for parity. How ridiculous is that? How can one not render a harsh response to such an aloof owner and organization?

 

 

 

Mike Schopp is in a category of his own. Where is the logic of hiring a sports radio host who proudly states that he doesn't like most sports? If there is a more arrogant and condescending person on radio I haven't heard one yet. Jerry Sulllivan comes off as a likeable rogue compared to this twit.

 

Well said. It's tough to argue with anything you've written.

 

As for Schopp, Jerry comes off as the more likable of the two when they're both on the radio together.

[transient]

Well said. It's tough to argue with anything you've written.

 

As for Schopp, Jerry comes off as the more likable of the two when they're both on the radio together.

 

The thing is, Schopp has been an evolutionary process. He's always tried to come off as erudite, and at the beginning of his radio days in Buffalo he was a bit different and out of place with regard to the topics he covered, but not mean spirited. He's definitely evolved to a demeaning joke that is contemptuous of the majority of his audience. I haven't heard him in years, but it sounds like that trend has continued in earnest.

 

I feel like Sullivan has always written from a place of smugness and contempt, even during the '90s. I think that's what makes him so intolerable to me now... I almost feel like he is reveling in this decade. I would draw the analogy of late night television hosts and how much they loved having "W" in office because it was good for ratings, despite his effect on the nation as a whole. If the team turns things around, how is he going to point out obvious flaws so he can pound his chest and tell us how smart he is. His style is not the result of covering this long stretch of futility, rather the long stretch of futility is tailor made for this bell cryor of misery.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I feel like Sullivan has always written from a place of smugness and contempt, even during the '90s. I think that's what makes him so intolerable to me now... I almost feel like he is reveling in this decade. I would draw the analogy of late night television hosts and how much they loved having "W" in office because it was good for ratings, despite his effect on the nation as a whole. If the team turns things around, how is he going to point out obvious flaws so he can pound his chest and tell us how smart he is. His style is not the result of covering this long stretch of futility, rather the long stretch of futility is tailor made for this bell cryor of misery.

Sully's "attitude" is very disagreeable.

 

But his attitude seems to resonate with many angry fans. He definitely gives voice to lots of frustrated fans.

 

People who want to revel in their frustration with the team have an ally in Jerry Sullivan.

 

IMO, it's too bad that he's simply a mob leader and nothing more.

 

Besides his attitude, again, I find his writing to be disappointing.

 

His writing is not interesting. It's boilerplate, conventional and boring. He brings nothing insightful to the table.

 

He could be just as dour as he is now, and still write much better opinions, if he was a more skilled writer.

 

As for Schopp, only he could make Sullivan seem like "an alright guy" by comparison.

[wardigital]

Posanski is one of the best writers working today. And a star for SI. It's just not fair to compare Sullivan to him. That's like comparing the guy who writes dime store romance novels just to make rent to Kurt Vonnegut. Talk about high expectations.

 

 

 

I finally understand what you're trying to do. It didn't make sense until this last post. But it's clear now. You're trying to pull a crayonz, but you sir are no crayonz. You keep bashing Sullivan for being a boring writer with stilted prose but man, your prose could cause an outbreak of narcolepsy in the middle of a Kieth Richards coke binge.

 

If you're going to go for laughs here, you gotta step your game up. This helps:

 

It's perfectly fair to compare the two, they've led very similar career paths. There are, of course, other great sportswriters who don't think too highly of Posnanski (Buzz Bissinger -- but he hates virtually everyone on the planet)

 

As for trying to do something -- I'm not trying to do anything. Just having a conversation!

 

I think the basic issue with Sullivan is that he doesn't seem to like the NFL very much, and as a consequence he isn't willing to do the legwork -- interviews, behind the scences stuff, etc. -- that good columnists (not reporters, mind you) do. Here, I'm thinking of the Cowboys' writers, Will McDonogh of old, Mark Cannizaro, Don Banks back in the day when he was with the Minnesota paper, and yes, Joe Posnanski. Hence he never really offers any new info. The one person who he does have a bit of access to (or had, to be more accurate) is Wilson, who used to occasionally speak with Sully. He doesn't seem to have that access anymore, and he has alluded to it.

 

Do I think that Sully has the capability to be a better columnist? Sure; he seems like a fairly intelligent person to me. However, it's very clear to me at least that he *far* prefers baseball and basketball (especially college ball - Providence College in particular) to football. He writes with real passion about these sports, while football feels like it's an assignment with him. He doesn't know that much about the sport after all of these years, and his opinions are both obvious and received wisdom. He's said on more than one occasion on GR that it's not the team that he cares about, but the long suffering fans. Basically, I think that if Buffalo had ever gotten a baseball team, he'd be a happier person. And I think his talents would be on display. He seems to know more about those sports. Just as importantly, it seems as if he *wants* to know more about those sports.

 

By the way, his negativity in general is very apparent in his q & a's with fans. Being the Bills columnist appears to have taken an emotional toll on him.

 

If you review some of Jerry Sullivan's earlier work, say, from 90 to 97ish, he writes much more about basketball and other sports less critical in the area. In those pieces, he seems to vary between positive pieces and criticism. But his coverage of the Bills and Sabres has almost always been from the negative tilt. Which is fine. I don't think it makes him a very good writer, but it's fine.

 

I actually could probably pull some Bills articles from Sullivan from the Super Bowl years, replace the names, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between what he wrote then and what he writes today.

 

So it's possible that he doesn't like the NFL very much, but I also get the sense that he's sort of lost some creative control or capability over the years. His extracurricular writing for the News is not anywhere near as frequent as it used to be.

 

I do think his point about the Linebackers is a good one, but, as always, I think the way he goes about writing it is pretty bad. Maybe that's the only way he knows how, I dunno.

 

Repeating what LV-Bills noted that you don't have to be insightful covering the Bills because the organization is frightfully inept. This isn't merely a cycle of ineptitude; it is institutional.

 

Jerry Sullivan's commentary has been the same because the level of performance on the field and within the organization is consistently shamefully bad. For those who cover the franchise and whose job it is to render "opinions" it would be abnormal not to escalate one's contempt for such a detached and dysfunctional organization.

 

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree that there is a disconnect going on in this discussion. The tenor of the commentary of those paid to give their opinions (JS) on the franchise is directly related to the long standing debacle within the organization and on the field. This institutional futility is occurring in a system designed for parity. How ridiculous is that? How can one not render a harsh response to such an aloof owner and organization?

 

 

 

Mike Schopp is in a category of his own. Where is the logic of hiring a sports radio host who proudly states that he doesn't like most sports? If there is a more arrogant and condescending person on radio I haven't heard one yet. Jerry Sulllivan comes off as a likeable rogue compared to this twit.

 

This is something I get behind. I have my criticisms with the way Jerry Sullivan conducts himself professionally, but my goodness, Mike Schopp makes the man look positively peppy.

[Lurker]

Sully's "attitude" is very disagreeable.

 

But his attitude seems to resonate with many angry fans. He definitely gives voice to lots of frustrated fans.

 

People who want to revel in their frustration with the team have an ally in Jerry Sullivan.

 

IMO, it's too bad that he's simply a mob leader and nothing more.

 

Besides his attitude, again, I find his writing to be disappointing.

 

His writing is not interesting. It's boilerplate, conventional and boring. He brings nothing insightful to the table.

 

He could be just as dour as he is now, and still write much better opinions, if he was a more skilled writer.

 

As for Schopp, only he could make Sullivan seem like "an alright guy" by comparison.

 

Agree totally.

 

Opinions are easy to produce, since, like sphincters, everyone's got one. Building a 300-word column based on original research or insights from insiders who fans have little access to is difficult...but ultimately rewarding to the reader.

 

Pretty easy to see what side of the professional ethic Jerry comes down on...

[JohnC]

Sully's "attitude" is very disagreeable.

 

But his attitude seems to resonate with many angry fans. He definitely gives voice to lots of frustrated fans.

 

People who want to revel in their frustration with the team have an ally in Jerry Sullivan.

 

IMO, it's too bad that he's simply a mob leader and nothing more.

 

There is little revelry in being exposed to the generational garbage coming out of OBD. Being a Bills' and NFL fan you don't need a leader to formulate a distasteful opinion on what is so very obvious to most superficial fans. I'm certainly not jumping for glee watching the Bills because I prefer being negative rather than positive. I am saddened by the state of affairs of this team. I certainly want the situation to get better. Rejoicing in the muck of mediocrity is not my idea of having fun. Entertainment is supposed to be somewhat entertaining.

 

Besides his attitude, again, I find his writing to be disappointing.

 

His writing is not interesting. It's boilerplate, conventional and boring. He brings nothing insightful to the table.

 

He could be just as dour as he is now, and still write much better opinions, if he was a more skilled writer.

 

I respect your opinion of Sullivan's writing style. Your critique is clearly explained. However, where I staunchly stand behing him is in his harsh view of what has been going on for a very long time within this backwater organization. Many western NY media members are not willing to challenge the old guard organization on its many perplexing decisions and maneuvers. He simply fears not where others do. I salute him for that.

[Lurker]

I respect your opinion of Sullivan's writing style. Your critique is clearly explained. However, where I staunchly stand behing him is in his harsh view of what has been going on for a very long time within this backwater organization. Many western NY media members are not willing to challenge the old guard organization on its many perplexing decisions and maneuvers. He simply fears not where others do. I salute him for that.

What may I ask does he have to fear?? He's got guild protection and short of a buy-out, will be at the Snooze until he retires...

[JohnC]

What may I ask does he have to fear?? He's got guild protection and short of a buy-out, will be at the Snooze until he retires...

 

Sullivan has made the claim that because of his harsh criticisms of the owner and organization he has very little access to the team. He stated that they won't respond to his calls or inquiries. I'm not saying he is completely shut out of the organization but his access is very severely curtailed.

[Lurker]

Sullivan has made the claim that because of his harsh criticisms of the owner and organization he has very little access to the team. He stated that they won't respond to his calls or inquiries. I'm not saying he is completely shut out of the organization but his access is very severely curtailed.

That's not much of a professional impediment, in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it sounds more like an excuse to take the easy way out ("they won't talk to me") rather than do some leg work and develop other sources/resources, which Sully seems to have very few of.

[wardigital]

That's not much of a professional impediment, in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it sounds more like an excuse to take the easy way out ("they won't talk to me") rather than do some leg work and develop other sources/resources, which Sully seems to have very few of.

 

Excellent points.

[JohnC]

That's not much of a professional impediment, in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it sounds more like an excuse to take the easy way out ("they won't talk to me") rather than do some leg work and develop other sources/resources, which Sully seems to have very few of.

 

With respect to the Bills I don't think heavy lifting is required reporting on the team. Just trust your eyes and filter out the inane excuses.

 

If you read outside reports on the Bills and its organization from people who have little axe to grind against this franchise there is a unanimity on how they are reported on and perceived. You don't need an insider view to judge their decision making. The long term record of the Bills is a reflection of its dysfunction, certainly not its excellence.

[bills44]

With respect to the Bills I don't think heavy lifting is required reporting on the team. Just trust your eyes and filter out the inane excuses.

 

 

So then why does Sullivan cry about being "shut out" by the front office?

[JohnC]

So then why does Sullivan cry about being "shut out" by the front office?

 

Who said he is crying about it? He simply made the comment on how the franchise responded to his criticisms.