Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 This article. Wow, just wow. My favorite part: "Dareus hates when media bring it up, but if hes going to take shots at the team, I feel justified in revisiting his indiscretions over a six-month period." So now Sully works for the Bills management now? Interesting. Also how the hell does being late to work twice count as "indiscretions" on the same level as the other two? Like Sully has never been late to work before. This really is just a hit job. Not only that but there are two blatant lies. One, he says that Dareus wants Suh money, and yesterday Dareus flat out said he does not want Suh money, an interview that Sully even references in the piece saying that Dareus backtracked. Plus he says that Dareus doesn't seem to know about the Bills franchising him when Dareus specifically said he would sign the franchise and play yesterday too. Sully was just being a dick.
HamSandwhich Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 He looked huge and moved like he was running in loose sand even before his brother being killed in that season that took him a few months to get going Yea, if the rumored offer is true it's a ridiculous comment to make (even if it wasn't an ideal structure etc...) It's like thinking you are a 60k a year employee and pitching a fit about not being wanted after a 58k opening offer. It's not like it wasn't even in the ball park. That's what I'm saying, that's what raises red flags in my eyes. He can be lazy at times, and I worry he becomes somewhat Haynesworthesque if he gets a large contract.
YoloinOhio Posted August 23, 2015 Author Posted August 23, 2015 Not only that but there are two blatant lies. One, he says that Dareus wants Suh money, and yesterday Dareus flat out said he does not want Suh money, an interview that Sully even references in the piece saying that Dareus backtracked. Plus he says that Dareus doesn't seem to know about the Bills franchising him when Dareus specifically said he would sign the franchise and play yesterday too. Sully was just being a dick.or he wrote it before yesterday's interview and then forgot or didn't bother to change it. He's such a tool.
MDH Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Sully was just being a dick Sully. This pretty much sums it up. Which is a shame, because on his lucid days he is capable of writing pretty good articles. Unfortunately, those days are few and far between.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 or he wrote it before yesterday's interview and then forgot or didn't bother to change it. He's such a tool. He definitely wrote it before yesterday but he added that Dareus backtracked yesterday and didn't bother to change what he wrote. This is a Sunday column and he surely listened to the Sat interview because he referenced it. He was just being a dick.
NoSaint Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 That's what I'm saying, that's what raises red flags in my eyes. He can be lazy at times, and I worry he becomes somewhat Haynesworthesque if he gets a large contract. It's a risk. He's had legal issues, was benched for attendance issues, and though not confirmed I agree on the weight issues. He isn't without baggage.... But he is REALLY good. He's the type that could be an all time great if he stays focused.
Agent 91 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Someone mentioned the amount of money on the line...it is not sustainable. I believe this will be last year fro both Wood and KW. But you still have a ton of other contracts to get done....this is not gunna be easy. Anbody know Tyrods contract? Way top complicated. There are two conditions where ir will void either after this year or after 2016. Heard it on the radio but it's to complicated to explain. I'm sorry
jester43 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Based on the title of Jerry's article Suh's past issues mean he didn't deserve a Suh-like deal either. I stick up for Sully a lot, but even I am rolling my eyes at this one. Sully, I guess you're just bored? Marcell's past issues aren't nothing, but he's going to get a similar contract, if not a bigger one.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Not only that but there are two blatant lies. One, he says that Dareus wants Suh money, and yesterday Dareus flat out said he does not want Suh money, an interview that Sully even references in the piece saying that Dareus backtracked. Plus he says that Dareus doesn't seem to know about the Bills franchising him when Dareus specifically said he would sign the franchise and play yesterday too. Sully was just being a dick. so you are saying the media is telling lies or they misinterpreted what they saw / heard?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 so you are saying the media is telling lies or they misinterpreted what they saw / heard? I'm saying Sully wrote something he didn't know about, and before it was published he heard what he wrote wasn't true, but then he didn't go back and revise the untruths, he knowingly kept them in there because it fit his narrative. And we know he did this because he specifically mentioned the interview where Dareus refuted two points in Sully's article. That, to me, is blatantly lying.
jester43 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 so you are saying the media is telling lies or they misinterpreted what they saw / heard? How/why is "the media" one thing/person? This latest meanie Buffalo sportswriter B word-fest is about one particular writer who wrote a weak column. But "THE MEDIA" is telling lies? Good grief, cue the boogey-man music.
dave mcbride Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I'm saying Sully wrote something he didn't know about, and before it was published he heard what he wrote wasn't true, but then he didn't go back and revise the untruths, he knowingly kept them in there because it fit his narrative. And we know he did this because he specifically mentioned the interview where Dareus refuted two points in Sully's article. That, to me, is blatantly lying. He wrote that piece because at the end of the day his job is to play to the peanut gallery, and nothing plays to the Buffalo peanut gallery more than using salt-of-the-earth/lunch-pail rhetoric to criticize an "overpaid" athlete. He knows he's doing this (notice the passage in which he sorta acknowledges this), but he does it anyway. It is a terrible piece written in bad faith. Edited August 23, 2015 by dave mcbride
HamSandwhich Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 It's a risk. He's had legal issues, was benched for attendance issues, and though not confirmed I agree on the weight issues. He isn't without baggage.... But he is REALLY good. He's the type that could be an all time great if he stays focused. Weren't they saying that Haynesworth was a generational talent? I love MD when he's playing at his best, but I'm not convinced that he will stay focused when he gets the big bucks. I hope I'm wrong.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 He wrote that piece because at the end of the day his job is to play to the peanut gallery, and nothing plays to the Buffalo peanut gallery more than using salt-of-the-earth/lunch-pail rhetoric to criticize an "overpaid" athlete. He knows he's doing this (notice the passage in which he sorta acknowledges this), but he does it anyway. It is a terrible piece written in bad faith. Yup.
jimmy10 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 How/why is "the media" one thing/person? This latest meanie Buffalo sportswriter B word-fest is about one particular writer who wrote a weak column. But "THE MEDIA" is telling lies? Good grief, cue the boogey-man music. Thank you. As soon as I read "the media is..." I disregard whatever follows.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 How/why is "the media" one thing/person? This latest meanie Buffalo sportswriter B word-fest is about one particular writer who wrote a weak column. But "THE MEDIA" is telling lies? Good grief, cue the boogey-man music. sarcasm -- plain and simple. my issue with the media is they often post things in haste, get it wrong, then issue a retraction or correction. Is it wrong to expect them to get it right the first time? To give unbiased reports?
3rdand12 Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Weren't they saying that Haynesworth was a generational talent? I love MD when he's playing at his best, but I'm not convinced that he will stay focused when he gets the big bucks. I hope I'm wrong. Well he is going to get paid regardless. whether its 90 million or 100. We as fans can only hope they can keep the band together a couple more years. But Whaley needs to look into up and coming DTs now anyways sarcasm -- plain and simple. my issue with the media is they often post things in haste, get it wrong, then issue a retraction or correction. Is it wrong to expect them to get it right the first time? To give unbiased reports? I think the issue is you are using a broad brush?
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 So because Dareus yesterday said yesterday he doesn't want Suh money this is a lie?? So if he ends up with like $1mil less in your eyes does that makes Dareus's statement correct? I guess if the Bills were to offer him close to the same he'd turn it down as doesn't want to be paid that much? Not trying to defend Sully too much, but Sully is constantly ripped basically because he's not a homer and doesn't always paint a rosy picture, like any person will distort things to his liking to paint the picture he wants painted. In fact I didn't agree with most of this latest Sully article, but trying to point out this as blatant lies, well quite frankly you're no better than Sully with distorting facts to your liking, just that you like many here all hate Sully so you'll be viewed as a hero for telling it like it is. Only problem is you're telling it to a room full of people mostly all wearing the same rose colored glasses that you are wearing and they will all agree with you. The pettiness and hatred in sports fans does amaze me! Fanhood is like a holy war. Not only that but there are two blatant lies. One, he says that Dareus wants Suh money, and yesterday Dareus flat out said he does not want Suh money, an interview that Sully even references in the piece saying that Dareus backtracked. Plus he says that Dareus doesn't seem to know about the Bills franchising him when Dareus specifically said he would sign the franchise and play yesterday too. Sully was just being a dick.
Peter Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 He definitely wrote it before yesterday but he added that Dareus backtracked yesterday and didn't bother to change what he wrote. This is a Sunday column and he surely listened to the Sat interview because he referenced it. He was just being a dick. Well said - particularly the last sentence. Sully and Bucky write their articles "in advance" to advance their own narrative.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 So because Dareus yesterday said yesterday he doesn't want Suh money this is a lie?? So if he ends up with like $1mil less in your eyes does that makes Dareus's statement correct? I guess if the Bills were to offer him close to the same he'd turn it down as doesn't want to be paid that much? Not trying to defend Sully too much, but Sully is constantly ripped basically because he's not a homer and doesn't always paint a rosy picture, like any person will distort things to his liking to paint the picture he wants painted. In fact I didn't agree with most of this latest Sully article, but trying to point out this as blatant lies, well quite frankly you're no better than Sully with distorting facts to your liking, just that you like many here all hate Sully so you'll be viewed as a hero for telling it like it is. Only problem is you're telling it to a room full of people mostly all wearing the same rose colored glasses that you are wearing and they will all agree with you. The pettiness and hatred in sports fans does amaze me! Fanhood is like a holy war. Do you believe what you just wrote? That maybe Dareus saying he doesn't want Suh money means or could mean he wants 1m less? Of course not. It means he's not asking for that much but Sully said he was, THEN learned he wasn't, but still left that in there after he changed his report for it to be in Sunday's paper. That's a blatant lie. The Bills are going to offer him the least they possibly can but still sign him. They are not going to offer him Suh money either. That's a ridiculous statement IMO. The article would have been fine if it was printed Saturday. Saturday that stuff may or may not have been true and he would have been in his right to infer it. But Dareus said something different on Saturday and Sully knew he did BECAUSE HE REFERENCED IT.
Recommended Posts