Sully throws SJ13 under the bus

[Leelee Phoenix]

Jerry tells it like it is.

No, he doesn't. He's a troll that's paid very well for a rag that's been dead for a decade. Our local version of Skip Bayless.

[filthymcnasty08]

That's what comes with the 7-figure paychecks....if you play like Stevie has, those that once cheered you are going to boo you. If and when you turn it around, they will cheer you again. Take it from someone that has watched Eli Manning's career on a weekly basis.

 

What other course of action does a writer of a sports column in a daily newspaper have when a once good player is hurting the team? If they come out in favor, should there be a disclaimer that they have the right to change their mind years later if the player falls off? Besides....it's still Sully....standard issue.

 

This is all part of professional sports.....we just have 2 of the worst franchises in all of prof sports right now and nowhere else to go with this!!!!!!!! I need a shrink!

[BackInDaDay]

"You don’t need a weatherman

To know which way the wind blows"

 

nope.. ya just need Sully

[PromoTheRobot]

To the OP point, if Sullivan changed course, he ought to at least admit it in his article. He makes it sound like he was anti-Stevie all along.

BINGO! That is my point. Own your words. Don't act like you never said something.

 

PTR

[The Big Cat]

I could care less if a columnist changes his tune to fit the moment. And I'm not one to give Sully praise because I think for a long time liked to 'play the part.'

 

That said, he crushes it with a few lines in this:

 

That’s the main thing for Stevie, keepin’ it real. It’s part of his well-crafted image to defy the rigid strictures of pro football, to stand apart. That’s why Jim Rome would put him on the national airwaves during the Super Bowl to talk about how he ignores the team workout program.

Johnson has never been one to toe the line, to mouth the dull, predictable things. We love a free spirit. Nothing like good copy during another losing season. But it’s not the best thing for a team in the buttoned-down universe of the NFL.

 

And how does this not leap up and slap the faces of everyone still clingining to the Stevie bandwagon:

 

Rookie Marquise Goodwin had a long touchdown catch in each game (40 and 43 yards). Johnson has one 40-plus TD grab his entire career.

 

Sure, he’s a possession receiver who does much of his work over the middle, but for $7.25 million a year, you’d like to see him break one now and then.

 

And while we all love to glom to his 3 x 1,000 seasons:

 

He doesn’t have a 100-yard game since Week 2. He has six TD catches in his last 24 games.

Edited December 12, 2013 by The Big Cat

[C.Biscuit97]

I could care less if a columnist changes his tune to fit the moment. And I'm not one to give Sully praise because I think for a long time liked to 'play the part.'

 

That said, he crushes it with a few lines in this:

 

That’s the main thing for Stevie, keepin’ it real. It’s part of his well-crafted image to defy the rigid strictures of pro football, to stand apart. That’s why Jim Rome would put him on the national airwaves during the Super Bowl to talk about how he ignores the team workout program.

Johnson has never been one to toe the line, to mouth the dull, predictable things. We love a free spirit. Nothing like good copy during another losing season. But it’s not the best thing for a team in the buttoned-down universe of the NFL.

 

And how does this not leap up and slap the faces of everyone still clingining to the Stevie bandwagon:

 

Rookie Marquise Goodwin had a long touchdown catch in each game (40 and 43 yards). Johnson has one 40-plus TD grab his entire career. Sure, he’s a possession receiver who does much of his work over the middle, but for $7.25 million a year, you’d like to see him break one now and then.

 

I love it when someone says someone crushes it because they agree with their opinion.

 

But he's right. Stevie should have been catching more bombs from that rocket armed Fitz. Manuel and SJ, because of both of their injuries, haven't had a ton of practice time. Still, I've see SJ open deep and just get missed.

[NFL95MelGrayDomination]

Does he help us win anymore? If not his spot on the team should be questioned.

Edited December 12, 2013 by NFL95MelGrayDomination

[Jauronimo]

Does he help us win anymore? If not his spot on the team should be questioned.

By that metric, everyone's spot on the team should be questioned.

[PromoTheRobot]

I could care less if a columnist changes his tune to fit the moment. And I'm not one to give Sully praise because I think for a long time liked to 'play the part.'

 

That said, he crushes it with a few lines in this:

That’s the main thing for Stevie, keepin’ it real. It’s part of his well-crafted image to defy the rigid strictures of pro football, to stand apart. That’s why Jim Rome would put him on the national airwaves during the Super Bowl to talk about how he ignores the team workout program.

Johnson has never been one to toe the line, to mouth the dull, predictable things. We love a free spirit. Nothing like good copy during another losing season. But it’s not the best thing for a team in the buttoned-down universe of the NFL.

 

And how does this not leap up and slap the faces of everyone still clingining to the Stevie bandwagon:

 

Rookie Marquise Goodwin had a long touchdown catch in each game (40 and 43 yards). Johnson has one 40-plus TD grab his entire career. Sure, he’s a possession receiver who does much of his work over the middle, but for $7.25 million a year, you’d like to see him break one now and then.

And two years ago he wrote that SJ deserved every penny.

 

You say you don't care if a columnist changes his mind, but I do. To me if you can write something and then do a 180 later without acknowledging it then your words don't mean anything.

 

And that was my original point. Not do you agree with the column.

 

PTR

Edited December 12, 2013 by PromoTheRobot

[hondo in seattle]

I don't read Sully often because he's a whining baby. But I went back and read this article just to understand this thread. And while Sully's being a whiny child as usual, I thought this article presented a justifiable point of view. I'm not agreeing with all of Sully's points and it's always a mystery if Sully himself truly agrees with all of Sully's points. But Jerry here is only saying the stuff a lot of us are thinking. SJ has been disappointing this year.

[NoSaint]

Two years ago he wrote a column shaming the Bills to extend Stevie Johnson. Now he's says the Bills overpaid him. Jerry's memory is a little fuzzy these days.

 

http://www.buffalone...stevie-20131211

 

But not really. Jerry knows he wrote a column in support of Johnson. But he doesn't care because, as he pointed out to me in an email he sent to me, it's his job to write about the moment, even if the moment contradicts what he wrote earlier. Years ago I wrote Jerry a chiding email over a column where he blamed Tom Donahoe for drafting that stiff Mike Williams. (The tackle, not the WR.) This even though Jerry lavishly praised the pick and Donahoe after that draft.

 

It irks me. Are you not irked?

 

PTR

 

do you have the old column? in this one he writes:

 

The chatter about winning rings hollow after awhile. Two years ago, when I advocated not re-signing Johnson, I said he had separated from the team one too many times. Now, I’ve lost count.

[PromoTheRobot]

I don't read Sully often because he's a whining baby. But I went back and read this article just to understand this thread. And while Sully's being a whiny child as usual, I thought this article presented a justifiable point of view. I'm not agreeing with all of Sully's points and it's always a mystery if Sully himself truly agrees with all of Sully's points. But Jerry here is only saying the stuff a lot of us are thinking. SJ has been disappointing this year.

Then all Sully has to say was he was wrong about wanting SJ extended.

[JPS]

Does he help us win anymore? If not his spot on the team should be questioned.

Boom

[NoSaint]

 

Then all Sully has to say was he was wrong about wanting SJ extended.

 

he doesnt just sidestep it, or omit it -- he flat out says he was on the other side of the fence (though it might be one of those "hes not the right guy, but they dont have a choice" opinions)

 

if you can track down the former article to bring the calling out full circle, it would definitely help.

[The Big Cat]

I love it when someone says someone crushes it because they agree with their opinion.

 

But he's right. Stevie should have been catching more bombs from that rocket armed Fitz. Manuel and SJ, because of both of their injuries, haven't had a ton of practice time. Still, I've see SJ open deep and just get missed.

 

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

Does Stevie not embrace his individualism? Has Marrone not made it clear he doesn't care for that kind of **** and would prefer his players be buttoned up? That all seems pretty objective to me.

 

And how do your QB excuses hold water when a rookie, in 9 games, has doubled the long reception count of a guy who's played 75? But more importantly, the original point had more to do with the amount of money Stevie's being paid to not make those plays, and by your logic, since we have nobody who can pass well, we shouldn't invest in ANY receivers until we do...?

 

Most times I appreciate you smiting everyone with righteous optimism, but I think Stevie's over stayed his welcome in that department, man. Time to move on.

 

And two years ago he wrote that SJ deserved every penny.

 

You say you don't care if a columnist changes his mind, but I do. To me if you can write something and then do a 180 later without acknowledging it then your words don't mean anything.

 

And that was my original point. Not do you agree with the column.

 

PTR

 

And that's totally valid. I can understand your critique of that, particularly given below:

 

do you have the old column? in this one he writes:

 

Exactly. PTR's post is what brought me there, and that line made me go, whuuuuuuuuuuuuh??

Edited December 12, 2013 by The Big Cat

[cvanvol]

he doesnt just sidestep it, or omit it -- he flat out says he was on the other side of the fence (though it might be one of those "hes not the right guy, but they dont have a choice" opinions)

 

if you can track down the former article to bring the calling out full circle, it would definitely help.

 

 

This is exactly how he does it! He states a black and whit opinion and then he adds a line saying "but it could go in the completely opposite direction". Then he is covered either way to say I was right! That is the thing that annoys me the most.

[JPS]

Actually, no, it has nothing to do with the Bills, and everything to do with creativity and writing style. Good columnists keep their writing interesting; others do not. I used to write for the AP, and as part of our journalism classes in college we read different columnists from papers all across the country. Unfortunately, I don't think the sports opinion columnists at the News measure up to many of the others we ran across in our studies (in fact it isn't close).

 

As I pointed out, Jerry's columns have read exactly the same since the Bills were in their glory years (unless they've changed dramatically in the last 3 years--I wouldn't know, but it doesn't sound like it reading these comments).

 

It has absolutely zero to do with "the truth hurts"...I could care less if Sullivan writes his articles with a negative tone, positive tone, or no tone at all. I find his work repetitive and boring, and I'm not going to read it.

 

It's about quality of the writing, which just isn't there anymore. The Sullivans and Gleasons don't hold a candle to guys like Jim Kelley and Larry Felser; guys whose work never reached hum-drum depths regardless of how the Sabres and Bills (respectively) were performing.

 

The quality isn't (or in the very least, wasn't) there, and so I ask folks in this thread: why read it?

I hear ya on style. I've never really evaluated any sports reporter on that level. As long as they can reasonably convey their idea, I'm okay with it. Why read it? For me, he's around the Bills. He sees the room. I read all of the beat reporters for this reason. Most of them do a decent job. I like the guy Pollock (from Olean, I think).

 

I think people direct their ire at Sullivan due to his justified lack of optimism, not his writing skills.

[cvanvol]

I hear ya on style. I've never really evaluated any sports reporter on that level. As long as they can reasonably convey their idea, I'm okay with it. Why read it? For me, he's around the Bills. He sees the room. I read all of the beat reporters for this reason. Most of them do a decent job. I like the guy Pollock (from Olean, I think).

 

I think people direct their ire at Sullivan due to his justified lack of optimism, not his writing skills.

 

I think the lack of optimism directly changes his writing style. All of his articles read like this, exactly the same. Even when the team is good he puts that negativity out there. Just like his constant Mario bashing, if you follow his twitter he bashes mario at least once a game. Then if the team or mario is playing good he will write a mostly positive article with a little cop out worked in that way no matter what happens he can write his inevitable "I told you so" column.

Edited December 12, 2013 by cvanvol

[dhg]

Two years ago he wrote a column shaming the Bills to extend Stevie Johnson. Now he's says the Bills overpaid him. Jerry's memory is a little fuzzy these days.

 

http://www.buffalone...stevie-20131211

 

But not really. Jerry knows he wrote a column in support of Johnson. But he doesn't care because, as he pointed out to me in an email he sent to me, it's his job to write about the moment, even if the moment contradicts what he wrote earlier. Years ago I wrote Jerry a chiding email over a column where he blamed Tom Donahoe for drafting that stiff Mike Williams. (The tackle, not the WR.) This even though Jerry lavishly praised the pick and Donahoe after that draft.

 

It irks me. Are you not irked?

 

PTR

 

Not a Sullivan fan at all, but if it irks you and others, then he did his job.

[Campy]

I hear ya on style. I've never really evaluated any sports reporter on that level. As long as they can reasonably convey their idea, I'm okay with it. Why read it? For me, he's around the Bills. He sees the room. I read all of the beat reporters for this reason. Most of them do a decent job. I like the guy Pollock (from Olean, I think).

 

I think people direct their ire at Sullivan due to his justified lack of optimism, not his writing skills.

 

For some people, that may be true.

 

The thing that gets me is that, aside from a couple of columns written a few weeks into the season, it's the same template, it's the same exact thing he's saying - ad nauseum. As mentioned upthread, Buffalo was blessed with two outstanding sports columnists in Felser and Kelley, and while they had days that were better than others, their columns were a must-read. Even in years when the Sabres and Bills struggled, you wanted to see what they had to say.

 

Sully, unfortunately, is just really, really predictable.