DDD Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Jerry Sullivan is a guy who thrives on negativity. He's find something to complain about if the Bills won the superbowl.
John from Riverside Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 To me the problem is that Stevie and Fitzpatrick had a connection that Stevie and EJ Manuel do not have...... and that happens when you switch out QB's......we have to live in the now and the now is that there isnt anything Stevie does that Woods does not do and has the potential to be better at this point.......and that is without the pouting that Stevie Johnson is doing.... And I think people are going to be suprised at how little we get for him.....he could be an outright release.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Looks like he just copied and pasted what a lot of the simpletons on here have been posting. Get him even an average qb and let this anti-stevie movement die a quick, painless death. What, you mean an average QB that will hit him in the numbers, like Fitzy, or Manuel. Whoops.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 My biggest issue with SJ is he gets hurt alot. Between his durability and dropped passes, he has dependability issues and this team doesn't need that. Perhaps but this is the first year he has missed games. There are plenty of issues you can bring up if you want to complain about SJ, this; however, is not one of them.
todd Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 If you let d-bags like him irk you, you will always be irked. Jerry is a weenie. I consider him to be a pretty small person, so his act actually amuses me. He's like a little child. 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
PromoTheRobot Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) do you have the old column? in this one he writes: I found it! Letting Stevie Walk Would Only Add To The Bills Dysfunction (Dec 4, 2011) And here's another Sully gem: Fitz Deserves To be paid Like A No.1 (Aug 5, 2011) Again, I don't have an issue with Sully changing his position or being negative, etc. I have an issue with pretending he never wrote what he wrote. PTR Edited December 12, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
thebandit27 Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 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. This is the crux of it for me. I found it! Letting Stevie Walk Would Only Add To The Bills Dysfunction (Dec 4, 2011) And here's another Sully gem: Fitz Deserves To be paid Like A No.1 (Aug 5, 2011) Again, I don't have an issue with Sully changing his position or being negative, etc. I have an issue with pretending he never wrote what he wrote. PTR I'd read it for the comedic value of the apparent hypocrisy, but then I'd have to click on a link to one of Sullivan's articles, which I simply will not do.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 12, 2013 Author Posted December 12, 2013 I'd read it for the comedic value of the apparent hypocrisy, but then I'd have to click on a link to one of Sullivan's articles, which I simply will not do. If the Bills had been more willing to bargain, they probably could have signed Johnson for less. But they should give it another try. Offer him a deal similar to Fitz's, which paid him around the middle of No. 1 quarterbacks. There are 14 wide receivers making $7.65 million. Offer him six years, $45 million, or $7.5 million a year. If it sounds like overpaying, so be it. They got two productive seasons from him at bargain rates. You can bet there will be some team willing to go to $8 million for a man who attacks Revis Island.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Sullys job is to generate clicks, fill up pages with words and help sell papers. Not to be consistent, optimistic, credible, insightful, or analytical. He's decent at it as people that dislike him still read him so they can talk about how negative he is. Pretty ingenious to have people who dislike you inadvertently pay you to keep doing what you do. He understands splashy negative and controversial titles draw an audience. People like to read and have an argument with the paper or their computer screen. You can usually spot his writing style just by the title. On Stevie I think he has brought up what I have been thinking. I have an SJ13 jersey, and thought he was still growing into a top guy but I am tired of watch him screw up. I remember few fewer big plays than horrendous ones. He didn't complete the play to win Atlanta, dropped a slant which would have won cinci in 2011, Pittsburgh OT, he was a focal point in the KC pick 6... Vs Carolina I thought he finally was stepping up to be the go to guy. Our Anquan Bolden. The one you throw to when you have to convert.
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I found it! Letting Stevie Walk Would Only Add To The Bills Dysfunction (Dec 4, 2011) And here's another Sully gem: Fitz Deserves To be paid Like A No.1 (Aug 5, 2011) Again, I don't have an issue with Sully changing his position or being negative, etc. I have an issue with pretending he never wrote what he wrote. PTR for sure - with the full context, its a pretty ridiculous statement. clearly things can change but to not only forget to mention your changing stance but to revise history so you actually came out on the right side is pretty lame on his part.
thebandit27 Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 for sure - with the full context, its a pretty ridiculous statement. clearly things can change but to not only forget to mention your changing stance but to revise history so you actually came out on the right side is pretty lame on his part. Try sitting next to him in the press box sometime...it's brutal.
Livinginthepast Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 OT but is Sully no longer on WGR at all this season or have I missed something? Its been all Joe B on Mondays at Sully's old time slot.
The Big Cat Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 OT but is Sully no longer on WGR at all this season or have I missed something? Its been all Joe B on Mondays at Sully's old time slot. Someone needs to define the line--or lackthereof--separating WGR and the Bills communications team...
808 Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I found it! Letting Stevie Walk Would Only Add To The Bills Dysfunction (Dec 4, 2011) And here's another Sully gem: Fitz Deserves To be paid Like A No.1 (Aug 5, 2011) Again, I don't have an issue with Sully changing his position or being negative, etc. I have an issue with pretending he never wrote what he wrote. PTR hahaha nice find.
BillnutinHouston Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) But it does bother me when upset fans think that the way to get better is to get rid of good players because they aren't "good enough". How about getting rid of the bad players? Is a player that in successive weeks fumbles away the game, then tips a relatively easy reception for an interception, and in both weeks minimizes the impact of those plays, a good player that a 4-9 team should keep? How does this fit into Marrone's template of "accountability"? Edited December 12, 2013 by BillnutinHouston
San-O Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Can't really disagree with much of that article. IMO. Let Stevie go. Time to move on.
Al Cowlings Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 As much I like Stevie Johnson, I hope he plays well enough for the Bills to be able to trade him for a 3rd round pick. While he always has played hard for this team, I think his carefree, fun-loving, loose attitude is not a good model for the Bills young receiving core to emulate. Johnson needs to go to a team that isn't looking for him to be a serious team leader type. Then I'd take either Watkins or Evans in the 1st round, trade the two thirds for a 2nd and use the two 2nd rounders on quality offensive lineman. With Watkins/Evans, Woods and Goodwin then having a solid offensive line for the running game and pass protection, I think the Bills would be ready to finally have the makings for an explosive offense. No one in the NFL would give up a 3rd rounder for Stevie Johnson. Dream on, he'll be on the waiver wire.
Bufcomments Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 It doesn't bother me when fans are upset -- I'm upset too, because losing stinks, and it should upset you as a fan. But it does bother me when upset fans think that the way to get better is to get rid of good players because they aren't "good enough". How about getting rid of the bad players? The Bills love to employ the strategy of letting a guy go via cut, trade, or free agency, then spending a high pick on his replacement. THIS DOES NOT LEAD TO IMPROVEMENT. We cut Lawyer Milloy and drafted Donte Whitner. We traded Willis McGahee and drafted Marshawn Lynch. We drafted Spiller so we could trade Lynch, and drafted McKelvin so we could let Jabari Greer walk. Meanwhile, the scrubs around them have changed names, but keep being replacement-level players. What you said is true. No way we should have got rid of Beast mode. They didn't even have to draft C.J., they had Freddie. Your right this organization does do things half backwards. Keeping Stevie and ADDing a Beast WR to help him out would make the offense almost unstoppable With Freddie and C.J. in the backfield.
Maury Ballstein Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Who wants to see my Pulitzer ? No one in the NFL would give up a 3rd rounder for Stevie Johnson. Dream on, he'll be on the waiver wire. Keepin it real ? We can't snag a 4th from the jets with ease ? Come on man.
Rubes Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 I found it! Letting Stevie Walk Would Only Add To The Bills Dysfunction (Dec 4, 2011) And here's another Sully gem: Fitz Deserves To be paid Like A No.1 (Aug 5, 2011) Again, I don't have an issue with Sully changing his position or being negative, etc. I have an issue with pretending he never wrote what he wrote. PTR Cool, nice find. But let's be honest about a couple of points Sully made back then: Johnson isn't an elite receiver, one of the NFL's top 10 wideouts. He's not much of a deep threat. There are 31 NFL wide receivers with at least 600 yards receiving this season. His average per catch (11.5 yard) is the lowest among all of them. So Johnson is essentially a great possession receiver who wants to be paid like an elite wideout. But in the context of Chan Gailey's offense, which employs a lot of multi-receiver sets and puts a premium on short, accurate throws, Johnson is a valuable asset, a guy with a gift for getting open in short, tight spaces. Sully doesn't exactly sing SJ's praises. When he does talk about his value, it's in the context of Chan Gailey's offense. Perhaps the point he's trying to make now is that, with Chan gone, his value has gone down tremendously. And another one: And how good is he, really? Can the Bills find a less expensive way to find 80 catches and 8-10 touchdowns a season? Coach Chan Gailey has gotten a lot of production out of lowly regarded receivers, many of them undrafted. Maybe he feels the wideouts in his system are interchangeable. The Bills should be careful about that. It's dangerous when coaches start to believe too much in their own myth. Johnson's ability to run those underneath routes -- the kind Lee Evans avoided -- has been a big reason the offense has functioned so well at times. People talk about the rare chemistry between Fitz and Gailey, but don't discount the Fitz-Stevie chemistry. Again, not exactly singing his praises, and when he does talk about his value and ability, it has to do with the chemistry between him and Fitz. Who, like Chan, is no longer here. Point being, perhaps the things that made SJ so valuable in the first place (Chan and Fitz) are now gone, reducing his value to the point where he is no longer an important asset, and thus the reason for Sully's change of mind. Of course, it certainly would have been better to point this out rather than to say he was against the re-signing of SJ. But I'm not sure I would call it a complete 180.
Recommended Posts