Jerry Sullivan is certifiable.

[RkFast]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

Edited September 27, 2010 by RkFast

[Thurman#1]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

 

 

 

In preseason, Sully said he didn't like any of the QBs, and we should have tried to bring in someone else. He also said that he didn't think Edwards could get it done, and that he didn't think there had been a real competition. He doubted whether Edwards should be the QB.

 

After the first week and second weeks, he said Edwards looks absolutely lousy and shouldn't have been the starter.

 

After the switch was made, he said IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TRENT THE STARTER, then switching him out so quickly smacks of desperation.

 

This time, he said "God knows what took him so long, but he figured out that Ryan Fitzpatrick gave his team a better chance to win than Trent Edwards. He was right."

 

Nothing that doesn't make sense there. Yeah, if you take a few words out of context, you can make it look as if he was contradicting himself. Look at the statements in context and you can see he wasn't. From day one, he's been saying Trent is the wrong choice.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Thurman#1

[BuffaloWings]

Sullivan himself is smacking of desperation.

 

I think that comment is an admission of him being wrong, so he hid it in there amongst something to legitimately complain about.

[bowery4]

The Kelsey stuff is right on, the rest? Jerry is like a negative poster on here with a few more quotes from the players. JW may not like to hear someone to say it (I assume because they are friends and he somehow respects JSs' opinions) but really Jerry is like a bad art critic, it is not hard to pick apart crap it's soft and smells bad. Give me some insights I didn't have before wasting 5 mins of my life.

[Hplarrm]

The Kelsey stuff is right on, the rest? Jerry is like a negative poster on here with a few more quotes from the players. JW may not like to hear someone to say it (I assume because they are friends and he somehow respects JSs' opinions) but really Jerry is like a bad art critic, it is not hard to pick apart crap it's soft and smells bad. Give me some insights I didn't have before wasting 5 mins of my life.

exactly. Sullivan is not a good journalist as he simply seems to throw a bunch of opinions against the wall without much of a coherent statement of the facts. Fine being a journalist is not his job with the paper.

 

However, he also does not present a very compelling showing as a columnist as he simply does not provide insights into the game which someone with access into the game (he is paid to watch it a lot -though he already admits he does not watch or devote much study to the pre-season Bills) he has a chance to cultivate relationships with the players and the Bills staff which we do not have (though he seems to have frittered much of this opportunity away as he seeks to make money in different media.

 

His craftmanship as a writer seems haphazard also with no consistent style or public reaction evident as few like him a lot a few hate him a lot but most seem find him not unreadable but often forgettable.

 

While other writers have developed a style and stuck with it (Felser as the learned old hand, Brown as the insider sometimes prone to be a mouthpiece) Sully beyond the whinings of the aging failed athlete (his golf series)does not present much insight for the reader.

 

His work is a pretty good argument for term limits covering a particular beat. Perhaps it is that he just has a bad story to cover as the Bills are 0 for a decade, but from this reader/viewer perspective that it what separates the good writers from the not so good or the good columnists from just talking to some drunk at the bar.

[K Gun Special]

In preseason, Sully said he didn't like any of the QBs, and we should have tried to bring in someone else. He also said that he didn't think Edwards could get it done, and that he didn't think there had been a real competition. He doubted whether Edwards should be the QB.

 

After the first week and second weeks, he said Edwards looks absolutely lousy and shouldn't have been the starter.

 

After the switch was made, he said IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TRENT THE STARTER, then switching him out so quickly smacks of desperation.

 

This time, he said "God knows what took him so long, but he figured out that Ryan Fitzpatrick gave his team a better chance to win than Trent Edwards. He was right."

 

Nothing that doesn't make sense there. Yeah, if you take a few words out of context, you can make it look as if he was contradicting himself. Look at the statements in context and you can see he wasn't. From day one, he's been saying Trent is the wrong choice.

 

 

He is kind of contradicting himself. Hes a pro at MMQBing.

 

Taking your starter out after two weeks smacks of desperation..... next week....geez what took you so long as in you shouldve done it sooner like after week 1 .... which by his reasoning wouldve been more desperate.

 

btw Gailey has said all along nothing much separates these guys. Not like he pulled a solidified starting QB, THAT would be desperate. pulling a marginal NFL qb after two games is not.

[JohnC]

The Kelsey stuff is right on, the rest? Jerry is like a negative poster on here with a few more quotes from the players. JW may not like to hear someone to say it (I assume because they are friends and he somehow respects JSs' opinions) but really Jerry is like a bad art critic, it is not hard to pick apart crap it's soft and smells bad. Give me some insights I didn't have before wasting 5 mins of my life.

 

What insights are you searching for that haven't exhisted and been noted for a long time? From top (ownership) to bottom (talent level) the organization is a paragon of mediocrity. You don't need to be a genius analyst to declare a dead carcass a dead carcass. Instead of berating the critic who is calling things as he sees it, you should focus your attention on the shameful product.

 

Jerry Sullivan is very blunt and harsh in his assessment of this pathetic organization. He is not saying anything substatively different than the other more diplomatic media representatives are saying about the same disgusting product.

 

The real issue isn't that JS is tiresome in his repetitive criticisms of the franchise; the real issue is that the franchise has been inept for such a very long time. The messenger has nothing to do with the performances on the field. He is merely reporting/commenting on what he sees. That is the same ugly thing that everyone else sees.

 

I understand why Sullivan is lacking in tolerance for this very laughable organization working in a system disigned for parity. I feel the same way. It is simply inexcusable.

[bills44]

What insights are you searching for that haven't exhisted and been noted for a long time? From top (ownership) to bottom (talent level) the organization is a paragon of mediocrity. You don't need to be a genius analyst to declare a dead carcass a dead carcass. Instead of berating the critic who is calling things as he sees it, you should focus your attention on the shameful product.

 

Jerry Sullivan is very blunt and harsh in his assessment of this pathetic organization. He is not saying anything substatively different than the other more diplomatic media representatives are saying about the same disgusting product.

 

The real issue isn't that JS is tiresome in his repetitive criticisms of the franchise; the real issue is that the franchise has been inept for such a very long time. The messenger has nothing to do with the performances on the field. He is merely reporting/commenting on what he sees. That is the same ugly thing that everyone else sees.

 

I understand why Sullivan is lacking in tolerance for this very laughable organization working in a system disigned for parity. I feel the same way. It is simply inexcusable.

 

you're a big fan of Sullivan's work, eh?

 

You seem to defend him at every chance you get.

[JohnC]

you're a big fan of Sullivan's work, eh?

 

You seem to defend him at every chance you get.

 

I sure am. He is not afraid to call garbage garbage. He is not afraid to call incompetents incompetents. His blunt and harsh style sometimes can get tiresome but in general he is right in categorizing the Bills' organization as being dysfunctional. How can anyone disagree with something so obvious?

 

It's not about the critic. It's about the product.

[bills44]

yes, his work is ground-breaking. revolutionary, some might say. the Pulitzer Prize is right around the corner.

 

his 180 on Fitzpatrick at QB is par for the course. I remember when the Isles tied up the Sabres, 1-1, in the first round of the '06-'07 playoffs, Sullivan, ever the alarmist, said that the Isles could very well beat the Sabres, and that Rick DiPietro was the next Ken Dryden. Good call, Jer.

[uforesircher]

why even bother with sully-in-your-pants? imo he is a negative pos and that is his best quality. he is not a good writer, researcher, or analyst - all important requisite qualities that a journalist is supposed to have. that is why is will never be confused with a competent journalist. and if this offends any member of the trade - oh well - you all could try and police up after your own kind - a novel idea i know - but it does work.

[CodeMonkey]

It's not just him. Did you watch any of the sunday night pregame last night?

When they talked about the Bills/Pats game it wasn't how Fitz or Gailey, or the Bills offense did well. It was how the Pats should be worried that a team like Buffalo could score 30 points against them.

 

Same old same old. You don;t get any respect unless you earn it on the field, and for more than 1 game.

[uforesircher]

It's not just him. Did you watch any of the sunday night pregame last night?

When they talked about the Bills/Pats game it wasn't how Fitz or Gailey, or the Bills offense did well. It was how the Pats should be worried that a team like Buffalo could score 30 points against them.

 

Same old same old. You don;t get any respect unless you earn it on the field, and for more than 1 game.

 

100% correct - too right you are

[bobblehead]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

 

 

I remember hearing Sullivan say at the end of preseason that Trent was looking better and that Chan could be turning him around. Who knows what he is saying now, I have shut off WGR and Jerry Sullivan. My football experience is much better now. Why didn't I do this earlier?

[bills44]

why even bother with sully-in-your-pants? imo he is a negative pos and that is his best quality. he is not a good writer, researcher, or analyst - all important requisite qualities that a journalist is supposed to have. that is why is will never be confused with a competent journalist. and if this offends any member of the trade - oh well - you all could try and police up after your own kind - a novel idea i know - but it does work.

 

uh oh. I smell trouble.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

It does seem sort of bipolar that way.

 

I think it is just the writer changing his point-of-view on you, though. Last week, he was was harshly critical of the offensive genius credentials of a coach that invested the entire off-season on a reclamation project and gave up on it after only two games. He was pointing out that there is a obvious contradiction between investing all one's time and energy in a particular player and then permanently replacing that player after just 2 games. (By way of analogy, it was like throwing a rookie -- remember "clean slate" -- QB under the bus after his first 2 starts.) This week, I think his POV was that of any average beer-hazed Bills fan in the stands last year. It was obvious that Fitz gave the team a better chance to win. In both regards, it is consistent and heavy criticism leveled squarely at Chan Gailey.

[blizzardman]

on a side note Jerry...good call on Woodhead "playing his first game" because it must've been a different guy who play 10 games for the jets last year

[Thurman#1]

He is kind of contradicting himself. Hes a pro at MMQBing.

 

Taking your starter out after two weeks smacks of desperation..... next week....geez what took you so long as in you shouldve done it sooner like after week 1 .... which by his reasoning wouldve been more desperate.

 

btw Gailey has said all along nothing much separates these guys. Not like he pulled a solidified starting QB, THAT would be desperate. pulling a marginal NFL qb after two games is not.

 

yes, his work is ground-breaking. revolutionary, some might say. the Pulitzer Prize is right around the corner.

 

his 180 on Fitzpatrick at QB is par for the course. I remember when the Isles tied up the Sabres, 1-1, in the first round of the '06-'07 playoffs, Sullivan, ever the alarmist, said that the Isles could very well beat the Sabres, and that Rick DiPietro was the next Ken Dryden. Good call, Jer.

 

 

 

He wasn't contradicting himself. Take a look at Post #2 of this thread. Better yet, go back and read what Sully actually said.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Thurman#1

[freester]

What insights are you searching for that haven't exhisted and been noted for a long time? From top (ownership) to bottom (talent level) the organization is a paragon of mediocrity. You don't need to be a genius analyst to declare a dead carcass a dead carcass. Instead of berating the critic who is calling things as he sees it, you should focus your attention on the shameful product.

 

Jerry Sullivan is very blunt and harsh in his assessment of this pathetic organization. He is not saying anything substatively different than the other more diplomatic media representatives are saying about the same disgusting product.

 

The real issue isn't that JS is tiresome in his repetitive criticisms of the franchise; the real issue is that the franchise has been inept for such a very long time. The messenger has nothing to do with the performances on the field. He is merely reporting/commenting on what he sees. That is the same ugly thing that everyone else sees.

 

I understand why Sullivan is lacking in tolerance for this very laughable organization working in a system disigned for parity. I feel the same way. It is simply inexcusable.

I agree with you completely. We have too many ignorant posters on this board who waste their time criticizing Sully. They should be criticizing buddy nix and ralph for hiring him. Sully speaks the truth about an incompetent organization.

[K Gun Special]

He wasn't contradicting himself. Take a look at Post #2 of this thread. Better yet, go back and read what Sully actually said.

 

i have. I just read it different than you.