Best Player Available Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 ? He gets two threads a week here, minimum. What's this, a cooking forum? check the battery's in your sarcasm meters.
Peter Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) The hatred for The Buffalo News and its sports writers runs deep in WNY for some reason. I would assume it is because the critics were Courier Express supporters, but most of these posts come from people young enough not to know what that means. At least I assume. So who knows what its all about. Suffice to say, there is a breed of Bills "fan" that won't tolerate anything other than the most glowing, positive praise of the team. One wonders if these people tolerate total mediocrity in their own personal lives and how far this philosophy of life has gotten them. Speaking for myself - it is quite the opposite. We suscribed to the Buffalo News rather than the Courier Express. The News had a tradition of great writers - particularly in their sports department. Sports writers such as Larry Felser, Milt Northrup, Jim Kelley, and Vic Carucci. Sullivan, Gleason, and Harrington do not follow in that great tradition. They all are way too snarky and try to push their own narrative and re-litigate the same, tired complaints that they have. The sad thing is that Sullivan actually can be a good writer when he wants to be. The article that he wrote after the Olympics was wonderful. The article he wrote about the young woman who died in the balloon accident was poignant. Other than the few and far between articles that demonstrate that the guy has some talent, he basically is lazy and writes the same article time and time again. It also is humorous to listen to post game press conferences. You always know when Sully is asking a question - from his voice as well as the question. He really has embarrassed himself with some of the things that he has written about Terry Pegula - insinuating that he was lucky in business and I won't even repeat what he wrote about a press conference that they had with Mayor Brown. Gleason may be the worst. At one time, he seemed to have some contacts around the NHL. One clearly was Brian Burke. They both shared a dislike for Darcy. To this day, I think that Gleason finds it difficult to write an article without including a dig at Darcy. We get it. You do not like Darcy. One criticism of Darcy (according to Bucky) was that Darcy would not give Ted Nolan more than a one year extension when Darcy took over for Muckler so that Darcy could see how well they worked together. In my mind that was perfectly understandable given what had happened with Nolan, Muckler, and Hasek. Curiously, Gleason never criticized Tim Murray for essentially doing the same thing this past year. It got so bad with the Sabres, I think that the News even realized it when Bucky stopped doing his Sunday NHL column. Lately, Gleason's new target is Kim Pegula. He has written at least two articles asserting that she is "meddling." Some have commented that he appears to be trying to inject this as an issue on behalf of his buddy PLF. In the end, Gleason comes off as sexist and small. Moreover, if I ever spent millions on a hockey team (or over a billion on a football team), I would be involved as I gather most people here would be. Harrington is basically useless. He appears to want to be a Gleason/Sullivan protege. One of the most embarrassing things I ever have seen on TV was Harrington at a Lindy press conference. That was only to be outdone by both Harrington and Gleason at a Sabres end of year press conference after the 2012/2013 season. As an aside, it is very interesting to watch/listen to Sabres post game press conferences and locker room interviews. I have noticed that most of the Buffalo press corp ride the coattails of Paul Hamilton. He seems to be the only one who can ask intelligent and knowledgeable questions. The News has some good writers. I would include Tim Graham, Mark Gaughn, and John Vogl in that category. I also liked Allen Wilson. I am also very happy that Vic Carucci is coming back. Compare anything that he has written to Gleason and Harrington in particular - there is no comparison. Sully can be a gifted writer when he wants to be, but mostly writes the same "hey kid, get off of my lawn" article. Just my two cents. Edited September 17, 2014 by Peter
PromoTheRobot Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Speaking for myself - it is quite the opposite. We suscribed to the Buffalo News rather than the Courier Express. The News had a tradition of great writers - particularly in their sports department. Sports writers such as Larry Felser, Milt Northrup, Jim Kelley, and Vic Carucci. Sullivan, Gleason, and Harrington do not follow in that great tradition. They all are way too snarky and try to push their own narrative and re-litigate the same, tired complaints that they have. The sad thing is that Sullivan actually can be a good writer when he wants to be. The article that he wrote after the Olympics was wonderful. The article he wrote about the young woman who died in the balloon accident was poignant. Other than the few and far between articles that demonstrate that the guy has some talent, he basically is lazy and writes the same article time and time again. It also is humorous to listen to post game press conferences. You always know when Sully is asking a question - from his voice as well as the question. He really has embarrassed himself with some of the things that he has written about Terry Pegula - insinuating that he was lucky in business and I won't even repeat what he wrote about a press conference that they had with Mayor Brown. Gleason may be the worst. At one time, he seemed to have some contacts around the NHL. One clearly was Brian Burke. They both shared a dislike for Darcy. To this day, I think that Gleason finds it difficult to write an article without including a dig at Darcy. We get it. You do not like Darcy. One criticism of Darcy (according to Bucky) was that Darcy would not give Ted Nolan more than a one year extension when Darcy took over for Muckler so that Darcy could see how well they worked together. In my mind that was perfectly understandable given what had happened with Nolan, Muckler, and Hasek. Curiously, Gleason never criticized Tim Murray for essentially doing the same thing this past year. It got so bad with the Sabres, I think that the News even realized it when Bucky stopped doing his Sunday NHL column. Lately, Gleason's new target is Kim Pegula. He has written at least two articles asserting that she is "meddling." Some have commented that he appears to be trying to inject this as an issue on behalf of his buddy PLF. In the end, Gleason comes off as sexist and small. Moreover, if I ever spent millions on a hockey team (or over a billion on a football team), I would be involved as I gather most people here would be. Harrington is basically useless. He appears to want to be a Gleason/Sullivan protege. One of the most embarrassing things I ever have seen on TV was Harrington at a Lindy press conference. That was only to be outdone by both Harrington and Gleason at a Sabres end of year press conference after the 2012/2013 season. As an aside, it is very interesting to watch/listen to Sabres post game press conferences and locker room interviews. I have noticed that most of the Buffalo press corp ride the coattails of Paul Hamilton. He seems to be the only one who can ask intelligent and knowledgeable questions. The News has some good writers. I would include Tim Graham, Mark Gaughn, and John Vogl in that category. I also liked Allen Wilson. I am also very happy that Vic Carucci is coming back. Compare anything that he has written to Gleason and Harrington in particular - there is no comparison. Sully can be a gifted writer when he wants to be, but mostly writes the same "hey kid, get off of my lawn" article. Just my two cents. You left out Bob Dicesare. Not much Bills or Sabres stuff but a lot on UB. And when his friend Reggie Witherspoon got let go and replaced by Bobby Hurley, Bob got out his knives for AD Danny White. He's let up since because White is doing an outstanding job and if DeCesare kept up his petty sniping he'd just look foolish. The point is long time BN writers have agendas and they use their pulpits to go after people they don't like.
The Dean Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Like it or not (and most don't), he's been pretty much right for a long time. Being objective and correct is his job, no? If you're only interested in listening to people who are positive with respect to your views/wants, there are plenty of options. I'd imagine many of you agree with much of his analysis in retrospect, a few years after the fact... GO BILLS!!! Actually, NO., Being objective is most definately NOT his job. It is Mark Gaughan's job and Tim Graham's job. They are reporters. Sully is a columnist. His job is to be aggressively subjective. He writes his OPINION. As for being correct, well I suppose in the most general of ways, Sully says the Bills stink and the Bills have stunk, so he has been correct much of the time. But if you look more closely at what he writes, his reasoning is often flawed. Clearly he is wrong sometime, right? I mean nobody is right all the time. Does Sully ever write retractions? Does he mea cupla for his mistakes? I haven't read one. Because being correct isn't his job, either. Correct, he's an opinion columnist, not a cheerleading reporter. So many complaints, yet the haters continue to read his columns. The Howard Stern syndrome. Well, at least you got part of this right. He is an opinion columnist. In fact, pretty much by definition reporters are paid to be objective--quite the opposite of what columnists are paid to do. The exception might be "reporters" who work directly for teams/organizations, but then again, they really aren't reporters in the true sense. Of course, nobody can be totally objective, but unless they are really bad at their job, they should make an attempt to be objective. Reporters who act as "cheerleaders" aren't respected in the industry. But I've mislead you just a bit. In truth, Sully isn't paid for his opinion. The Buffalo Snooze couldn't give a damn about Sully's opinion. Sully's real job is to attract readers who the paper, in turn, sells to advertisers. The more readers he attracts, the more the newspaper likes him. Objectivity and truth/facts are completely irrelevant to his position. Of course, being negative isn't the only way for a columnist to share his opinion. A columnist CAN be a cheerleader or, God forbid, be thoughtful and clear headed----promote reasonable, level-headed and intelligent discussion. But if your job is to attract readership, what's the easiest path? Go negative! Promote controversy, even if there isn't any. That's become the way of sports talk--starting with radio and now a big part of what ESPN does as well (especially in the morning). And, unfortunately, that's become the mentality of so many posters on Internet sports forums. Guys get labeled "Busts", sometimes before they have even played one game. Players who aren't fully developed SUCK. People think they are expert GMs and know exactly where a guy should have been drafted, because, well every GM has the same take on things. I mean, having reasonable and intelligent discussions? C'mon that would take actual thought--considering the opinions of others--taking a measured stance when evaluation players and coaches. Who wants to do that? BORING! So you can see why a guy like Sully can attract some readership, and why some love him. It's easy to read and be entertained by that level of "journalism". Of course, some read him because he writes a column in the sports section and they read everything about the Bills. Maybe they really are entertained to some degree--some people enjoy professional wrestling and Judge Judy, too. Me? I stopped reading Sully in the paper years ago when I lived in WNY, unless I had already finished the other articles and was still sitting on the toilet. Gotta read something, right? Now I only read him if I click on a link without realizing it's Sully. I don't actively seek him out, but if I'm already there, and I have nothing to do, what the hell, right? So I don't read him too much these days, but enough to know he hasn't gotten any better.
Don Beebe Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Here's a picture you might recognize: Now thats funny, and it gives me the idea that I am not going to be searching for his columns to read.
bbb Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Speaking for myself - it is quite the opposite. We suscribed to the Buffalo News rather than the Courier Express. The News had a tradition of great writers - particularly in their sports department. Sports writers such as Larry Felser, Milt Northrup, Jim Kelley, and Vic Carucci. Sullivan, Gleason, and Harrington do not follow in that great tradition. They all are way too snarky and try to push their own narrative and re-litigate the same, tired complaints that they have. The sad thing is that Sullivan actually can be a good writer when he wants to be. The article that he wrote after the Olympics was wonderful. The article he wrote about the young woman who died in the balloon accident was poignant. Other than the few and far between articles that demonstrate that the guy has some talent, he basically is lazy and writes the same article time and time again. It also is humorous to listen to post game press conferences. You always know when Sully is asking a question - from his voice as well as the question. He really has embarrassed himself with some of the things that he has written about Terry Pegula - insinuating that he was lucky in business and I won't even repeat what he wrote about a press conference that they had with Mayor Brown. Gleason may be the worst. At one time, he seemed to have some contacts around the NHL. One clearly was Brian Burke. They both shared a dislike for Darcy. To this day, I think that Gleason finds it difficult to write an article without including a dig at Darcy. We get it. You do not like Darcy. One criticism of Darcy (according to Bucky) was that Darcy would not give Ted Nolan more than a one year extension when Darcy took over for Muckler so that Darcy could see how well they worked together. In my mind that was perfectly understandable given what had happened with Nolan, Muckler, and Hasek. Curiously, Gleason never criticized Tim Murray for essentially doing the same thing this past year. It got so bad with the Sabres, I think that the News even realized it when Bucky stopped doing his Sunday NHL column. Lately, Gleason's new target is Kim Pegula. He has written at least two articles asserting that she is "meddling." Some have commented that he appears to be trying to inject this as an issue on behalf of his buddy PLF. In the end, Gleason comes off as sexist and small. Moreover, if I ever spent millions on a hockey team (or over a billion on a football team), I would be involved as I gather most people here would be. Harrington is basically useless. He appears to want to be a Gleason/Sullivan protege. One of the most embarrassing things I ever have seen on TV was Harrington at a Lindy press conference. That was only to be outdone by both Harrington and Gleason at a Sabres end of year press conference after the 2012/2013 season. As an aside, it is very interesting to watch/listen to Sabres post game press conferences and locker room interviews. I have noticed that most of the Buffalo press corp ride the coattails of Paul Hamilton. He seems to be the only one who can ask intelligent and knowledgeable questions. The News has some good writers. I would include Tim Graham, Mark Gaughn, and John Vogl in that category. I also liked Allen Wilson. I am also very happy that Vic Carucci is coming back. Compare anything that he has written to Gleason and Harrington in particular - there is no comparison. Sully can be a gifted writer when he wants to be, but mostly writes the same "hey kid, get off of my lawn" article. Just my two cents. Great assessment of all them. Totally agree about Sully - those articles you mentioned, that seemingly come about once a year, show how good he could be. The original Darryl Talley "plug in" article, his article about the 1999 Sabres Cup run (it isn't life or death, but it is life) are a couple of others that were as good as it gets. But, his attitude and laziness prevents him from making them the rare exception to his rule.
Gene Frenkle Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Are you a "BRONY?" if you are not sure... look it up-it's hillarious. No I am not seriously calling you a brony. Holy crap, that's hilarious!
Thurman#1 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Among the dumbest things negative Nancy constantly does is refer back to Bills teams in the past as if they have any bearing on the 2014 team. Nonsense. No he didn't. Where does he say this has a bearing on the 2014 team? Show the words. Does he talk about old teams, drawing comparisons and making points? Sure. It's reasonable to do so. But he didn't say it had a bearing on this team. That's your own inference you're criticizing, not anything Jerry said. In today's column, in commenting on the crossing route passes thrown to Watkins, he write " weren't we screaming for "them" to throw crossing route passes to Lee Evans". Hey Jerry, who is "them"? A coaching staff that has not had anything to do with the Bills organization in years. And what in the world does that have to do with the coaches, players and front office which constitute the 2014 team. Again, when did he say that the old coaching staff had anything to do with what went on yesterday. He didn't. And I guess you were screaming for more crossing routes way back then based on your years of NFL experience and your extensive film studies of the games way back when. I see why you're doing this, misquoting him. 'Cause if you use what he actually said, there's nothing to get mad about. Here's what he actually said, "Remember how we screamed for them to throw those crossing patterns to Lee Evans, back when Evans was the highest-paid wideout in team history? We’re bound to see a lot more of it as the chemistry between Manuel and Watkins grows and the rookie learns how to beat press coverage at the line." There's nothing wrong with that. And he didn't say, "I screamed." He said, "We screamed." He wasn't claiming any great genius, or that he'd made some brilliant point as you're desperately trying to pretend he did. I get it. You hate Jerry. Fine, whatever. A lot of people do, generally the same people who hate most journalists who reported on the Bills for the last 14 years because when reporting on such a bad team a realistic person said a lot of bad things about the Buffalo Bills, and that made some Bills fans mad. Again, fine. But if you have to throw up straw man arguments, claiming that whoever you're attacking said stuff he didn't say, that's an early indicator that your argument makes no sense. Edited September 18, 2014 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Actually, NO., Being objective is most definately NOT his job. It is Mark Gaughan's job and Tim Graham's job. They are reporters. Sully is a columnist. His job is to be aggressively subjective. He writes his OPINION. As for being correct, well I suppose in the most general of ways, Sully says the Bills stink and the Bills have stunk, so he has been correct much of the time. But if you look more closely at what he writes, his reasoning is often flawed. Clearly he is wrong sometime, right? I mean nobody is right all the time. Does Sully ever write retractions? Does he mea cupla for his mistakes? I haven't read one. Because being correct isn't his job, either. You're right, of course, that he's a columnist and paid to write, among other things, his opinion. But I have seen him admit mistakes. A lot, over the years. But I've mislead you just a bit. In truth, Sully isn't paid for his opinion. The Buffalo Snooze couldn't give a damn about Sully's opinion. Sully's real job is to attract readers who the paper, in turn, sells to advertisers. The more readers he attracts, the more the newspaper likes him. Objectivity and truth/facts are completely irrelevant to his position. That's really overstating it. Like it or not, Sully is a widely respected guy, in the industry and even around town. Lose credibility and you lose most people's interest. Lose people's respect, lose your credibility, and you lose your value to your employer. So, while Sully doesn't have to be objective, he's got to be reasonable enough to maintain overall credibility. Which he has. And truth/facts are absolutely a huge concern for Sully and anyone in his position. If Sully just makes up a quote or a stat and blithely prints it, it's going to come back on him. Depending on the situation, he could lose his job if he made up something, depending on how bad it was, and would almost certainly lose his job if it was discovered he'd done it more than once, columnist or not. So truth/facts are in no way, "completely irrelevant to his position." He can't make up facts. He is, though, allowed to give his opinion about the facts, something straight-up news reporters are not generally allowed to do. Of course, being negative isn't the only way for a columnist to share his opinion. A columnist CAN be a cheerleader or, God forbid, be thoughtful and clear headed----promote reasonable, level-headed and intelligent discussion. But if your job is to attract readership, what's the easiest path? Go negative! Promote controversy, even if there isn't any. That's become the way of sports talk--starting with radio and now a big part of what ESPN does as well (especially in the morning). And, unfortunately, that's become the mentality of so many posters on Internet sports forums. Guys get labeled "Busts", sometimes before they have even played one game. Players who aren't fully developed SUCK. People think they are expert GMs and know exactly where a guy should have been drafted, because, well every GM has the same take on things. I mean, having reasonable and intelligent discussions? C'mon that would take actual thought--considering the opinions of others--taking a measured stance when evaluation players and coaches. Who wants to do that? BORING! So you can see why a guy like Sully can attract some readership, and why some love him. It's easy to read and be entertained by that level of "journalism". Of course, some read him because he writes a column in the sports section and they read everything about the Bills. Maybe they really are entertained to some degree--some people enjoy professional wrestling and Judge Judy, too. Me? I stopped reading Sully in the paper years ago when I lived in WNY, unless I had already finished the other articles and was still sitting on the toilet. Gotta read something, right? Now I only read him if I click on a link without realizing it's Sully. I don't actively seek him out, but if I'm already there, and I have nothing to do, what the hell, right? So I don't read him too much these days, but enough to know he hasn't gotten any better. Again, Sully's a widely respected guy. You don't like him or his slant, fair enough. But when the Bills do good things, Sully has no problem saying positive things. Check out his column on Seantrell Henderson this week as an example, but there are an awful lot more examples of positive columns from him. As you pointed out, though, the Bills have been a bad team for a long time. Any columnist who didn't point that out consistently would not be doing his job. Now, if the Bills actually become a good team and the guy continues being negative, that would be different. During the few brief periods during Sully's tenure when the Bills actually looked like there was a chance they might be turning a corner, Sully has been there, writing positively.
Chandler#81 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/jerry-sullivan/jerry-sullivan-henderson-turns-corner-with-bills-20140917
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/jerry-sullivan/jerry-sullivan-henderson-turns-corner-with-bills-20140917 Don't worry-- no one in this thread will bother to read this (very good) article.
Best Player Available Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Don't worry-- no one in this thread will bother to read this (very good) article. Some read all his articles. he has been right more than he's been wrong over the years. And, he is a huge Bills fan. Sullivan like all of us would like nothing better than to see this team succeed. But, he is not for the thin skinned who take everything as a affront when he writes about a team that sucked for 14 years straight.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140917 What a great article CBF
MDH Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140917 Sullivan is just a weather vane. He points in the direction the Bills (and their fans) are heading. He always seems negative because, well, the Bills have sucked. If they keep playing well he'll continue to write these types of articles.
BRH Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 What a great article I agree. Why? Because it's good reporting. He's a much better reporter than columnist.
Maddog69 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Jerry lost what little credibility he had with me about 5 years ago. He was on GR and they were talking about Ralph Wilson. The GR guys asked Jerry if he ever called Ralph to get his side of the story. Jerry said "No, I choose not to call him because I want to remain negative and don't want to feel sympathy because Ralph is old"(closely paraphrased). The key part for me was him admitting that he chooses to remain negative. I don't mind honest and objective reporting/opinions. I have no interest in intentionally negative ones. I have not read or listened to anything from him since.
dave mcbride Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Actually, NO., Being objective is most definately NOT his job. It is Mark Gaughan's job and Tim Graham's job. They are reporters. Sully is a columnist. His job is to be aggressively subjective. He writes his OPINION. As for being correct, well I suppose in the most general of ways, Sully says the Bills stink and the Bills have stunk, so he has been correct much of the time. But if you look more closely at what he writes, his reasoning is often flawed. Clearly he is wrong sometime, right? I mean nobody is right all the time. Does Sully ever write retractions? Does he mea cupla for his mistakes? I haven't read one. Because being correct isn't his job, either. Well, at least you got part of this right. He is an opinion columnist. In fact, pretty much by definition reporters are paid to be objective--quite the opposite of what columnists are paid to do. The exception might be "reporters" who work directly for teams/organizations, but then again, they really aren't reporters in the true sense. Of course, nobody can be totally objective, but unless they are really bad at their job, they should make an attempt to be objective. Reporters who act as "cheerleaders" aren't respected in the industry. But I've mislead you just a bit. In truth, Sully isn't paid for his opinion. The Buffalo Snooze couldn't give a damn about Sully's opinion. Sully's real job is to attract readers who the paper, in turn, sells to advertisers. The more readers he attracts, the more the newspaper likes him. Objectivity and truth/facts are completely irrelevant to his position. Of course, being negative isn't the only way for a columnist to share his opinion. A columnist CAN be a cheerleader or, God forbid, be thoughtful and clear headed----promote reasonable, level-headed and intelligent discussion. But if your job is to attract readership, what's the easiest path? Go negative! Promote controversy, even if there isn't any. That's become the way of sports talk--starting with radio and now a big part of what ESPN does as well (especially in the morning). And, unfortunately, that's become the mentality of so many posters on Internet sports forums. Guys get labeled "Busts", sometimes before they have even played one game. Players who aren't fully developed SUCK. People think they are expert GMs and know exactly where a guy should have been drafted, because, well every GM has the same take on things. I mean, having reasonable and intelligent discussions? C'mon that would take actual thought--considering the opinions of others--taking a measured stance when evaluation players and coaches. Who wants to do that? BORING! So you can see why a guy like Sully can attract some readership, and why some love him. It's easy to read and be entertained by that level of "journalism". Of course, some read him because he writes a column in the sports section and they read everything about the Bills. Maybe they really are entertained to some degree--some people enjoy professional wrestling and Judge Judy, too. Me? I stopped reading Sully in the paper years ago when I lived in WNY, unless I had already finished the other articles and was still sitting on the toilet. Gotta read something, right? Now I only read him if I click on a link without realizing it's Sully. I don't actively seek him out, but if I'm already there, and I have nothing to do, what the hell, right? So I don't read him too much these days, but enough to know he hasn't gotten any better. Dean: I've definitely seen him admit some mistakes over the years. I can't remember them specifically, but it has happened. So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140917 It's worth restating - this is a good piece.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Whats interesting about Jerry Sullivan. is his inability to even get the smallest bit of exposure on sports forums. negative or positive, you would think once in awhile someone would notice his columns? That's the true definition of fail. Hence his current job
Fingon Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So, do we like him today? http://www.buffalone...-bills-20140917 The NFLs new drug policy is really good news for Henderson. It takes 4 positive tests to be suspended now.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Don't worry-- no one in this thread will bother to read this (very good) article. Actually, I read it, and I'm sorry, I thought it was kind of BS to lead the whole piece by associate him with people who are suspected of committing violent crimes… at all. Even if it's a non-association association. Seantrel Henderson hasn’t punched out his girlfriend in an elevator, or abused his child with a switch. I mean, really? Is this what it takes to get eyeballs on your "work" these days?
Recommended Posts