Jerry Sullivan Strikes Back With A VENGEANCE, Slams The BN, The Pegulas, and some of the Buffalo fanbase

[dave mcbride]

11 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Felser was mostly a columnist but you're talking about the best the city ever had who covered the Bills over 68 years, so that is tough to live up to. Dunne is a very, very good feature writer, not a columnist. Eric Turner is absolutely great at what he does, breaking down film and analytics, etc, but not a columnist.

 

But both of those are totally different jobs than Sully's. I don't want to stick up for him, but he was strictly a columnist and if you want to compare him, and his style and substance and entertainment value, IMO you have to compare him to other columnists.

 

It's like saying a drummer sucks because there are all kinds of other guitar players in similar bands who are better musicians.

Felser really wasn't that good. Heresy, I know. I don't think he provided any more insight than Sullivan, partly because he didn't work sources like the good columnists do (read some Tyler Kepner and you'll know what I mean). I'm old enough to remember Felser getting fired fairly quickly after getting promoted to overseeing AFC coverage for The Sporting News (he had been their Bills guy), which was a big deal back in the day given TSN's cache among harder-core sports fans. He just did a lousy job there.  

Both Sullivan and Felser before him wrote like tribunes of the people, assuming that their role was to be an articulate mouthpiece of the proverbial passionate-yet-reasonably-educated fan. The good columnists always did that but also worked sources and brought new empirical information to the table (e.g., Will McDonogh, Joel Sherman, Don Banks, Bill Plaschke way back when). They were also VERY educated about the games they covered. Sullivan, who was clearly more of a basketball and baseball fan, just doesn't know that much, and Felser, who probably knew a little more, really didn't bring much insight because his takes were fairly lazy. 

 

What no one is mentioning is that Sullivan (and Felser before him) did bring one thing to the table that disappeared when the Pegulas took over: he had access to Ralph -- the best access at the newspaper, in fact. When Ralph died, he no longer had that attribute, and the new owners were clearly not going to give it back to him. Without that, how much did he really offer? 

Edited September 7, 2018 by dave mcbride

[timekills17]

14 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

Obviously you didn't hear the interview.  Jerry is passionate about being a writer and his dream job was being a columnist.  He did it well for almost 3 decades and sold a lot of newspapers.  It's understandable how getting this taken away from him was upsetting

 

I'm sure the news was very happy to get your $2.99 a month

 

The "he did it well" portion is subjective. You must accept that, or the discussion is moot.

No issues with his being upset that he lost his position, or even that he was passionate about it. He said so, and those are his feelings, so I have no choice but to concur.

However, I do not have to agree with him or you that he was an outstanding, or even better than average writer, In my opinion - MY OPINION - he should have recognized that the Bills were a critical portion of Buffalo's sense of self worth in a difficult time during those three decades, and taken the more difficult path of keeping the Bills' ownership accountable while not constantly crapping on fans' hopes.

 

I can tell my kids they're dumb as rocks or I can show them where they've done well and where they can improve. Neither is giving them a star for participation. But with one technique they don't feel like shite when I'm done and may actually get better. It's harder to do - but if I'm doing my job "well" as a parent for almost 2 decades, its expected.

Edited September 7, 2018 by timekills17

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Felser really wasn't that good. Heresy, I know. I don't think he provided any more insight than Sullivan, partly because he didn't work sources like the good columnists do (read some Tyler Kepner and you'll know what I mean). I'm old enough to remember Felser getting fired fairly quickly after getting promoted to overseeing AFC coverage for The Sporting News (he had been their Bills guy), which was a big deal back in the day given TSN's cache among harder-core sports fans. He just did a lousy job there.  

Both Sullivan and Felser before him wrote like tribunes of the people, assuming that their role was to be an articulate mouthpiece of the proverbial passionate-yet-reasonably-educated fan. The good columnists always did that but also worked sources and brought new empirical information to the table (e.g., Will McDonogh, Joel Sherman, Don Banks, Bill Plaschke way back when). They were also VERY educated about the games they covered. Sullivan, who was clearly more of a basketball and baseball fan, just doesn't know that much, and Felser, who probably knew a little more, really didn't bring much insight because his takes were fairly lazy. 

 

What no one is mentioning is that Sullivan (and Felser before him) did bring one thing to the table that disappeared when the Pegulas took over: he had access to Ralph - the best access at the newspaper, in fact. When Ralph died, he no longer had that attribute, and the new owners were clearly not going to give it back to him. 

I actually thought the last several years of Felser he was lazy and phoned it in like Sully. But I liked him for a long time. And he was a great Buffalo ambassador (nothing to do with his job).

[oldmanfan]

If Sullivan thinks he's going to be real popular and make a good living at this new gig, I think he's mistaken.

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I actually thought the last several years of Felser he was lazy and phoned it in like Sully. But I liked him for a long time. And he was a great Buffalo ambassador (nothing to do with his job).

Sully is a great ambassador for Providence! (Actually, my dad was from Providence and my mom from RI too, so I kinda respect that.)

 

Also, while this is sorta off topic, Vic C has been pretty strong of late. (Yes, I know he's not a columnist.)

Edited September 7, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Felser really wasn't that good. Heresy, I know. I don't think he provided any more insight than Sullivan, partly because he didn't work sources like the good columnists do (read some Tyler Kepner and you'll know what I mean).

 

Wow!   This is almost the exact opposite of how I remember Felser.     Almost like Kurosawa's Rashomon.

 

As I recall, Felser had a ton of contacts around the league and used them to augment his columns with other points of view and insider knowledge.    He was old school, which may have failed him when media outlets started to favor snark commentary late in his career.   But he'd forgotten more about football than Sully ever knew when he retired and the downhill trajectory of Bills columns in the BN was set in motion...    

 

 

[BuffaloRush]

13 minutes ago, timekills17 said:

 

The "he did it well" portion is subjective. You must accept that, or the discussion is moot.

No issues with his being upset that he lost his position, or even that he was passionate about it. He said so, and those are his feelings, so I have no choice but to concur.

However, I do not have to agree with him or you that he was an outstanding, or even better than average writer, In my opinion - MY OPINION - he should have recognized that the Bills were a critical portion of Buffalo's sense of self worth in a difficult time during those three decades, and taken the more difficult path of keeping the Bills' ownership accountable while not constantly crapping on fans' hopes.

 

I can tell my kids they're dumb as rocks or I can show them where they've done well and where they can improve. Neither is giving them a star for participation. But with one technique they don't feel like shite when I'm done and may actually get better. It's harder to do - but if I'm doing my job "well" as a parent for almost 2 decades, its expected.

 

This is a fair comment and I appreciate your honest reasonse.

 

Pertaning to Jerry doing his job “well,” I guess you can say it’s as subjective as everyone else here who felt he didn’t do his job well.  I will say this, he worked for the Buffalo News for 30 years and usually you don’t last that long in the media industry without be good - or at least competent at your job.  

 

Your criticism on Sully was fair as well.  I get how his style comes off as pessimistic and abrasive, yet you do seem to appreciate how he did try to hold those who felt were responsible for the failure accountable.  Many feel that is, perhaps, the most important part of any journalist.   Still I think Jerry could have done things a little differently.   I’d agree that many times he’d call the Bills out without offering suggestions.  

 

For what it’s worth, he did admit to taking “extremist” views, as all columnist do which might have been why it seems liked he was so brutal to fans.  

[Rico]

18 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I actually thought the last several years of Felser he was lazy and phoned it in like Sully. But I liked him for a long time. And he was a great Buffalo ambassador (nothing to do with his job).

Best things about Felser was him being a great ambassador, his contacts for inside info, and the credibility he had throughout the league. I have been and always will be a big fan. I do think though that Sully was a better writer. The way he would set up his slams could be quite masterful, just A+ trolling. Felser was pretty straight-forward, which can be good, but not as entertaining to me & as infuriating to others.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Rico

[BuffaloRush]

12 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Sully is a great ambassador for Providence! (Actually, my dad was from Providence and my mom from RI too, so I kinda respect that.)

 

Also, while this is sorta off topic, Vic C has been pretty strong of late. (Yes, I know he's not a columnist.)

 

Exactly.... it really makes you wonder whether these writers are trying amplify their opinion to generate more interest/attention in their publication

[BuffaloRush]

1 hour ago, Sanners said:

Kinda off topic, but The Instigators is a fantastic show. Andrew Peters has really blossomed. Craig Rivet is solid,

and they get great guests. They are critical and fair. The best show on GR by a mile 

 

The Canadian accents on that show are off the charts.  They say things like ‘dem and ‘dere. LOL

[Fadingpain]

21 minutes ago, Rico said:

Best things about Felser was him being a great ambassador, his contacts for inside info, and the credibility he had throughout the league. I have been and always will be a big fan. I do think though that Sully was a better writer. The way he would set up his slams could be quite masterful, just A+ trolling. Felser was pretty straight-forward, which can be good, but not as entertaining to me & as infuriating to others.

Jerry is a great writer and is very well respected in the newspaper business around the country.

 

Folks around here who suggest he is a terrible writer are clueless and/or simply mean they don't like his style or agree with his message.

 

 

[Bobby Hooks]

41 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

 

This is a fair comment and I appreciate your honest reasonse.

 

Pertaning to Jerry doing his job “well,” I guess you can say it’s as subjective as everyone else here who felt he didn’t do his job well.  I will say this, he worked for the Buffalo News for 30 years and usually you don’t last that long in the media industry without be good - or at least competent at your job.  

 

Your criticism on Sully was fair as well.  I get how his style comes off as pessimistic and abrasive, yet you do seem to appreciate how he did try to hold those who felt were responsible for the failure accountable.  Many feel that is, perhaps, the most important part of any journalist.   Still I think Jerry could have done things a little differently.   I’d agree that many times he’d call the Bills out without offering suggestions.  

 

For what it’s worth, he did admit to taking “extremist” views, as all columnist do which might have been why it seems liked he was so brutal to fans.  

You keep saying this like him admitting that he took the extremist view EVERY TIME is acceptable. 

 

Sure columnists do it, on tmz, and yahoo articles. It was the easy way, the lazy way, it was the low hanging fruit that riled up the knuckle clickers. 

 

I’d like to hear him admit that we deserved better. 

 

You say it like its acceptable because he did he did it so long. I think it’s nearly unforgivable because he did it so long. 

 

Just because you get away with something doesn’t make it ok, or prove that you do it well, it could just mean someone else is poor at doing their job as well.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bobby Hooks

[aceman_16]

29 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Jerry is a great writer and is very well respected in the newspaper business around the country.

EXACTLY!!!  Just look at all of his job offers for similar jobs that were parallel to his "dream job" and where he eventually ended up!  Haters gonna hate! 

 

 

 

 

 

PS site REALLY needs a standard sarcasm font!

[dave mcbride]

43 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

Jerry is a great writer and is very well respected in the newspaper business around the country.

 

Folks around here who suggest he is a terrible writer are clueless and/or simply mean they don't like his style or agree with his message.

 

 

I essentially agree. I think he has a pretty nice avuncular style, and he knows how to weave in pithy punch lines at the appropriate moments. His writing ability is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- the issue.

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I essentially agree. I think he has a pretty nice avuncular style, and he knows how to weave in pithy punch lines at the appropriate moments. His writing ability is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- the issue.

 

I'm at the head of the anti-Sully brigade, but I agree that he can write well.   

 

The problem is, I've never cared for his output.    In fact, a case could be made that he wasted his writing talent by taking the lazy, "drunk on a bar stool" approach rather than doing the hard work to be among the best at his profession.

 

A paragraph from Matthew Fairburn's piece on Josh Allen in today's Athletic really resonates here:

 

"...There’s no question about that, you learn the amount of work or preparation that’s necessary to give yourself a chance to be successful. Some of these guys have been so successful in the collegiate careers without doing the legendary work of the Mannings or the Bradys or the Breeses of the world.…I do think the ones who make it recognize and realize after a while that it’s not an easy chore. I have some God-given abilities but there’s a heckuva lot of work that goes into this thing. Some of them don’t realize it. Some of them never do.”

 

[aceman_16]

17 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I essentially agree. I think he has a pretty nice avuncular style, and he knows how to weave in pithy punch lines at the appropriate moments. His writing ability is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- the issue.

I THINK you used "avuncular" incorrectly. 

 

avuncular
1 : suggestive of an uncle especially in kindliness or geniality

 

Sully is ANYTHING but kind and genial.  Lol

 

OR you are trolling

Edited September 7, 2018 by aceman_16

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, aceman_16 said:

I THINK you used "avuncular" incorrectly. 

 

avuncular
1 : suggestive of an uncle especially in kindliness or geniality

 

Sully is ANYTHING but kind and genial.  Lol

 

OR you are trolling

What I meant by "avuncular" was an easy familiarity in presentation style that conveys that the speaker/writer is both a longtime local known to everyone and an old hand.  He may not have been all that kind (although stylistically his presentation style was one of accessibility and familiarity), but I'd argue that stylistically he was genial.

I don't "troll," for what it's worth. 

14 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

I'm at the head of the anti-Sully brigade, but I agree that he can write well.   

 

The problem is, I've never cared for his output.    In fact, a case could be made that he wasted his writing talent by taking the lazy, "drunk on a bar stool" approach rather than doing the hard work to be among the best at his profession.

 

A paragraph from Matthew Fairburn's piece on Josh Allen in today's Athletic really resonates here:

 

"...There’s no question about that, you learn the amount of work or preparation that’s necessary to give yourself a chance to be successful. Some of these guys have been so successful in the collegiate careers without doing the legendary work of the Mannings or the Bradys or the Breeses of the world.…I do think the ones who make it recognize and realize after a while that it’s not an easy chore. I have some God-given abilities but there’s a heckuva lot of work that goes into this thing. Some of them don’t realize it. Some of them never do.”

 

I agree!

Edited September 7, 2018 by dave mcbride

[aceman_16]

18 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

What I meant by "avuncular" was an easy familiarity in presentation style that conveys that the speaker/writer is both a longtime local known to everyone and an old hand.  He may not have been all that kind (although stylistically his presentation style was one of accessibility and familiarity), but I'd argue that stylistically he was genial.

I don't "troll," for what it's worth. 

I agree!

Okay...  fair enough and that description I can understand. Enjoy the day!

[blitzboy54]

17 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

Put it this way, if I want to hear incessant criticism of the Bills all I need to do is listen to the voices in my own head.  If that's not enough I can come here.  My issue with him wasn't his criticism, it was what he chose to criticize and when he chose to criticize it.  He found it to be his job to piss on everyone's parade during the briefest glimmers of joy and hope during a dark time.  You are allowed to let people briefly enjoy something and not lose your journalistic integrity.  I get what a columnist does, when you write the same basic column for 20 years it gets tired to read.

 

This is exactly correct

[Jukester]

I sometimes disagreed with his opinion but always looked forward to Jerry's columns. I for one am glad he's back on the scene. Those that can't stand him because he's 'negative' (that refrain is repeated over and over here) can choose not to read/listen to him.  It's that simple.  But the fact that he still elicits such strong opinions on both sides means he is/was doing his job as a columnist.  I also looked forward to his questions during the press conferences.  At least somebody had the balls to ask a few tough questions instead of the standard fluff.  According to the interview, he and Bucky have not gotten credentials from the Bills for that yet so there is also a bit of stonewalling there too.