Insider information discussion - Contain no insider info

[Kelly the Dog]

As far as I'm concerned, unless it's from Whaley's mouth or a done deal, it's not strong.

Look at the fiasco yesterday. The poster said that Fred was informed two nights ago he'd been cut. Then, he wasn't. If he had said, "my source says the plan is inform Fred tonight and give the news tomorrow," what would have been the difference, besides being less incorrect? We aren't placing bets here, we're just getting a feel on the pulse of the organization.

The "strength" of the info doesn't really matter to me, as long as it IS info.

I didn't see that post about Fred was informed two nights ago. Don't know who said that. Don't know the validity. But it could well have been 100% true. I doubt it but it could have. Then something happened that changed Fred from being cut. But the info he was informed he was being cut remains true.

[Dan]

Do you consider that insider info to be "wrong?" Because the trade didn't happen and the information didn't turn out to be true.

Or do you consider that insider to still be right, because at the time it was true and something unforeseen came out of nowhere to derail it.

I see both sides. Personally I don't think that info is wrong. It was right at the time it was made, the Bills themselves believed it would happen and prepared for it to happen and then something put a wrench in plans.

Discuss.

This is exactly one of the primary reason teams, or any business, don't openly acknowledge their plans. Sure, you don't want to give your competitors a clue as to your strategy, but you also do yourself and your players absolutely no good by letting the world know you wanted to trade them but the deal fell through.

 

In your scenario, the insider is still very much an insider. But, no deal is final until the ink is dry.

 

I guess, for me, I read all inside "scoops" with a bit of caution until that poster gains some credibility. And by that I mean they're right more often than not (even broken clocks are right twice a day). For the insiders, it also wouldn't hurt to just say... I heard it, but it seems the situation changed. For the non-insiders, it wouldn't hurt to just... Not be a *#%$ to everyone.

[dpberr]

I love the insider information. I think it's up to each individual fan/poster on whether you feel it is legitimate or plausible.

 

I always wondered if George Seifert was indeed sitting/standing/enjoying a coffee at any Buffalo area airport anytime that year.

 

On the flip side, somebody broke the news of something preposterous on first glance - Mario Williams in Buffalo, talking deal?

Edited March 10, 2015 by dpberr

[NoSaint]

 

We can't choose what kind of communication and manners we expect from our insiders. They are who they are. Leroi's posts are vague and....different. He prefers to just drop what he knows rather than explain. I wonder how much of the replies he even reads.

nope, we dont get to choose, and likewise they dont get to choose the treatment that they receive. its a bit of a back and forth with the communication. if he chooses to bomb the board with outrageous, unexplained predictions that dont come through and then not answer for them, he will be treated differently than a lot of our others here that share info. is what it is.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

What makes someone an insider? Is the recent poster who said he saw Fred Jackson working out, which suggested something significant was in the works, an insider? Please help me if you say "yes."

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

Are you talking to me? I'm trying to help protect one of our most likely insiders from other posters who like to make them feel unwelcome.

 

Are you trying to misunderstand me? If someone says something concrete, and in your heart you don't want to believe it, then add a "maybe" to the front of it.

No, Kelly the OP.

Since you are new here by your post count....

 

Fire Chan twists words continuously. Pay him little mind.

[NoSaint]

I didn't see that post about Fred was informed two nights ago. Don't know who said that. Don't know the validity. But it could well have been 100% true. I doubt it but it could have. Then something happened that changed Fred from being cut. But the info he was informed he was being cut remains true.

i think it was that they talked to him about the plan after the charity event, but not that it had been completed yet.

[K D]

I love the insider information. I think it's up to each individual fan/poster on whether you feel it is legitamate or plausible.

 

I always wondered if George Seifert was indeed sitting/standing/enjoying a coffee at any Buffalo area airport anytime that year.

 

On the flip side, somebody broke the news of something preposterous on first glance - Mario Williams in Buffalo, talking deal?

I too love the insider info. It's better than any drama filled reality show that my wife watches. I can't get enough of the rumors. But of course you have to take it with a grain of salt. Anyone that takes them as definite "news" is going to be disappointed. Let's cut guys like Leroi and other some slack. They are just forwarding on the info they are receiving. The more tid bits of info leaked to us the better!

 

Today is going to be fun

[FireChan]

 

Are you talking to me? I'm trying to help protect one of our most likely insiders from other posters who like to make them feel unwelcome.

 

Are you trying to misunderstand me? If someone says something concrete, and in your heart you don't want to believe it, then add a "maybe" to the front of it.

Why don't they just not say something concrete?

[Kelly the Dog]

No, Kelly the OP.

Since you are new here by your post count....

 

Fire Chan twists words continuously. Pay him little mind.

 

Why would you think I was Leroi's manager when numerous times I said I don't believe his information to be true?

 

Sometimes I think it is. The Rex stuff. Sometimes I think it isn't. I don't believe EJ was going to be cut or they knew they were getting Locker.

 

I don't know what to believe about Fred.

[Estelle Getty]

You idiots open this thread and then spend 2 pages of arguing what an inside source is. Without one inside source. Only on TBD.

[FireChan]

I didn't see that post about Fred was informed two nights ago. Don't know who said that. Don't know the validity. But it could well have been 100% true. I doubt it but it could have. Then something happened that changed Fred from being cut. But the info he was informed he was being cut remains true.

I think you're giving it to them both ways. Even if their info doesn't turn out, they're still "right," and when their info does turn out, they're prophets because they "called it."

 

I don't agree with that. It's no different from the rumors we hear. There's a huge difference between, "The Bill are rumored to grab Crabtree" and "My sources tell me we signed Crabtree last night," especially if we don't sign Crabtree.

 

One of them is correct or at the very least, not incorrect. Besides, what use is the info if it was wrong? Either the source was wrong or the mouthpiece for the source was wrong.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Exactly. "Insiders" are not men in black type characters with suits and briefcases. They are regular dudes who are friend of a friend, or are related to one of the 20 or so people that have access to info in the organization. They get pieces of info like "we don't really like EJ, we're probably going to cut him". They don't get really accurate info.

 

Honestly, I think we should be happy with scraps and crumbs of insider info, because we get an idea of what's really going on, and it gives us a step up on the media.

 

You have an interesting perspective. I know how rumors fly around a workplace and come home with folks, and sometimes they're on the mark and sometimes they're wrong and sometimes people get blindsided.

 

I do think how information is presented makes a big difference to how it is received. I think "insiders" who make definitive statements and mix in their opinion tend to court more abuse when it doesn't go down, while people who are more explicit about "this is what I heard from someone I trust, this is my opinion" are really appreciated no matter what.

[Kirby Jackson]

I think you're giving it to them both ways. Even if their info doesn't turn out, they're still "right," and when their info does turn out, they're prophets because they "called it."

 

I don't agree with that. It's no different from the rumors we hear. There's a huge difference between, "The Bill are rumored to grab Crabtree" and "My sources tell me we signed Crabtree last night," especially if we don't sign Crabtree.

 

One of them is correct or at the very least, not incorrect. Besides, what use is the info if it was wrong? Either the source was wrong or the mouthpiece for the source was wrong.

There is one difference though in that the "insiders" have the rumors before the media.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think you're giving it to them both ways. Even if their info doesn't turn out, they're still "right," and when their info does turn out, they're prophets because they "called it."

 

I don't agree with that. It's no different from the rumors we hear. There's a huge difference between, "The Bill are rumored to grab Crabtree" and "My sources tell me we signed Crabtree last night," especially if we don't sign Crabtree.

 

One of them is correct or at the very least, not incorrect. Besides, what use is the info if it was wrong? Either the source was wrong or the mouthpiece for the source was wrong.

That's a terrible example you just gave.

 

In the Crabtree example it's flat wrong. They couldn't have signed him last night. Otherwise he's signed. That's not something that can be correct when it's said but not turn out to be true later.

[LB3]

The info is still good.

[NoSaint]

 

You have an interesting perspective. I know how rumors fly around a workplace and come home with folks, and sometimes they're on the mark and sometimes they're wrong and sometimes people get blindsided.

 

I do think how information is presented makes a big difference to how it is received. I think "insiders" who make definitive statements and mix in their opinion tend to court more abuse when it doesn't go down, while people who are more explicit about "this is what I heard from someone I trust, this is my opinion" are really appreciated no matter what.

i agree big time - and will add i think you hit on another big one that i missed in previous posts.... being clear in whats sourced vs what is opinion goes a LOOOOOOONG way in the discussion too.

 

part of the leroi drama is he doesnt give any indication, as easy as it would be to do.

 

essentially, the theme for me is be an effective communicator - whether you have a source or not - and discussions go a lot smoother.

[zevo]

You idiots open this thread and then spend 2 pages of arguing what an inside source is. Without one inside source. Only on TBD.

haha...was thinking the same thing

[FireChan]

That's a terrible example you just gave.

 

In the Crabtree example it's flat wrong. They couldn't have signed him last night. Otherwise he's signed. That's not something that can be correct when it's said but not turn out to be true later.

Fred couldn't have been cut two days ago, otherwise, he's cut. That's not something that can be correct when it's said, but not turn out to be true later.

 

That's the analogous situation.

There is one difference though in that the "insiders" have the rumors before the media.

Sometimes they do.

 

Fred was bandied about as a possible cap casualty before he was "on the outs" according to inside sources.

[Kelly the Dog]

You idiots open this thread and then spend 2 pages of arguing what an inside source is. Without one inside source. Only on TBD.

I see one person asking "what an inside source is." I know of at least three people in the thread with inside sources. Add to the thread or go away.