Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021

[TBBills]

6 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do. Someone says they won't answer those questions stop trying so hard to ask it and ruin a whole interview b.c of stupid awkwardness.

It shows how bad he is at it. He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[JoPoy88]

Just now, TBBills said:

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do.

Riiiight. Doesn’t address anything I said or asked but seems legit. So not only do you know everyone’s cares, but their motivations too? Doubling down on the generalizations was the card to pull huh? Pfft. 

[Saxum]

13 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

 

He is in charge of silent majority except he is not silent.

 

Remember when facts do not match reality create your own facts!

 

And don't forget to rate down.

[TBBills]

4 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

He is in charge of silent majority except he is not silent.

 

Remember when facts do not match reality create your own facts!

Hey 4 pages b.c Wawrow ruined an interview, not bad. This would have never of made 3 if not for his blunder.

Edited June 4, 2021 by TBBills

[Saxum]

4 pages due to a hack's comment.

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, TBBills said:

He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

 

A good journalist shouldn't care whether his journalism "helps him". 

7 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

You have some.. inaccurate information. Teams, according to NFL Policy, can not revoke reporter access. They need approval. For example, the Jets hired a law firm to compile a dossier that it presented to the league when it wanted to revoke Manish Mehta's credentials and that guy did crazy sh*t like harassing Joe Douglas' kid at his baseball game and creating a fake burner account the he then pretended was Adam Gase. 

 

The Pro Football Writers of America (which is acknowledged by the NFL and Wawrow is a member) would certainly intervene if the Bills tried to remove access because someone asked a question the players or team said they didn't want to answer. 

 

 

The very idea that because someone says, "I don't want to answer questions about that" that they should then be immune to answering questions about it is just flat out insane. Think it through. If any public figure could do that then the only questions that would ever get asked are 'approved' questions and what would be the point? 

 

This. I once got thrown out of a Sir Alex Ferguson press conference for asking him a question I knew he didn't want to answer. That is the job. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 6/3/2021 at 7:45 AM, JoPoy88 said:

I mean, some of you are saying “it’s not a football issue” and then going into the ways it actually is of consequence to teams and the league. Seems a little contradictory.

 

The vaccine questions aren’t directly to the game on-field, yes. But the league is clearly setting different standards for teams based on whether or not the team meets the vaccination threshold. Those standards affect things like practice, meetings, mobility within team facilities, etc. Those things DO affect the team and can indirectly affect on-field performance; Brandon Beane has admitted this himself. So it kinda is a football issue and seems like it should be okay for media to ask questions about it.

 

This.  Mind, I think it's a fine thing for the Bills players to all agree to keep vaccine status and vaccine discussions "in house".

 

But it's still a football issue because of the NFL/NFLPA rules and their potential impact on efficiency of football operations and on player availability after exposure.

4 hours ago, TBBills said:

You only care if it makes someone look bad which is what Wawrow was trying to do.

 

You know that how?

 

4 hours ago, TBBills said:

Someone says they won't answer those questions stop trying so hard to ask it and ruin a whole interview b.c of stupid awkwardness.

It shows how bad he is at it. He got some attention for this but it isn't the kind that helps him as a journalist.

 

I mean, the guy asked a question, Poyer declined to answer the vaccine part, made some general comments about pro's of TC at AdPro and pro's of TC at SJF, and the interview continued.  Why and how did it "ruin a whole interview?"

 

I'm kind of getting the impression that you and a couple other guys are the ones who are super-sensitive on these points.  Guy asks a question OH NOES!  RUINED THE WHOLE INTERVIEW!.  Plus you know his motivation (making people look bad) and you know that no one cares.  Well for one, seems like you care, a lot, or it wouldn't be such a big deal to you that the question got asked, not answered, and the interview moved on along.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

The NFL should be asked questions then for making up these standards, not players.

 

That would be entirely fair IMHO - not just the NFL, but the NFLPA for the player standards.

[HappyDays]

6 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

LOL. “No one” cares huh? Guess you better tell Beane and McDermott that then, since they both have recently commented publicly on this exact issue.

What method did you use to poll the entire football community to come to your conclusion that absolutely NO ONE cares about this?

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

Edited June 5, 2021 by HappyDays

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

 

Just curious: what was the actual question Wawrow asked?  Do you even know?

 

Because the above makes it sound as though you don't.

[Doc Brown]

On 6/3/2021 at 3:10 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

As a former journalist I think it is absolutely the job of reporters to ask tough questions. It is not the job of reporters to ask players the questions they want to answer. The vaccine issue is a tough one for the Bills right now because their players made it so - whether it was Josh's likely too honest answer to a question earlier in the spring or Cole Beasley's clumsy tweet - they put it out there. McDermott has wisely in my view tried to put the issue back in the bottle and pull the clasp shut but I am afraid Sean doesn't get to choose what the issues are that the media asks about. 

 

For those who say the reporters should "stick to football" the regulations released last week make it pretty clear to me that whether or not individuals on a team are vaccinated is going to affect the football season in a multitude of ways. It is a legitimate line of questioning. 

Beane also didn't help with his unprompted comment suggesting decisions may be made for the bubble players based on whether they're vaccinated or not.  I don't like where this is going at all as trust issues between the players, coaches, and upper management could develop over this issue.  Something that hasn't seemed to be a problem since McBeane got here.  

[JoPoy88]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No one actually cares what answer Poyer or anyone else on the team gives. We already know the answer. There's nothing else to learn. The question only matters insofar as it drives conflict, which is the main currency of the internet now. We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. He asked the question because it's controversial and now people are talking about it. That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

Again with the “no one cares.” Bro, you don’t speak for everyone. YOU may not care, and that’s fine. Personally, I do care about the answer to JW’s question, for purely football reasons, since the league announced these different standards based on a team’s level of vaccination. I’d like the Bills to be able to take advantage of the relaxed rules for teams that meet the vaccination threshold.

 

 Other people may also care about that question and answer in broader terms as well, because some people want to get past COVID and see as many people as possible vaccinated asap. That would include public figures like the local football team.

 

Generalizations are the quickest way to prove to others that you’re a moron.

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

That's not what journalism is really supposed to be about but in the social media age that's what it's become.

 

Journalism is certainly not supposed to be about avoiding tough questions because someone says they don't want to answer them. It is pursuit of truth ultimately. 

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Again with the “no one cares.” Bro, you don’t speak for everyone. YOU may not care, and that’s fine. Personally, I do care about the answer to JW’s question, for purely football reasons, since the league announced these different standards based on a team’s level of vaccination. I’d like the Bills to be able to take advantage of the relaxed rules for teams that meet the vaccination threshold.

 

I wish the players would just get vaccinated and be done with it, but they've made their opinions known and there's not much else to say. It frustrates me. But we already know the answer any player will give to any question related to the vaccine - "we've decided to keep this an internal issue" or "I'm not answering a question about the vaccine" or "that's a question for our coaches." So no one really cares about the answer, just the controversy. We know what McDermott and Beane think, we know what the players have decided together. Any further questions are just meant to rankle the players. In this case it just made the interview really awkward for a couple minutes and we didn't learn anything new.

 

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Journalism is certainly not supposed to be about avoiding tough questions because someone says they don't want to answer them. It is pursuit of truth ultimately. 

 

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. We know the players aren't going to give specific answers. I very much disagree with his thoughts on the vaccine, but it is what it is. It's the dregs of the NFL offseason so journalists are going to latch onto any controversy they can, that's what this is really about.

 

I feel like I have to keep reminding people that these are football players. They aren't public speakers or social activists or scientists, etc. In some sense players like Poyer and Beasley brought this on themselves by airing their opinions publicly so they have to take some responsibility for that, but now the players have all decided to stop talking about it. Asking more questions won't accomplish anything.

Edited June 5, 2021 by HappyDays

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine. We know the players aren't going to give specific answers. I very much disagree with his thoughts on the vaccine, but it is what it is. It's the dregs of the NFL offseason so journalists are going to latch onto any controversy they can, that's what this is really about.

 

I feel like I have to keep reminding people that these are football players. They aren't public speakers or social activists or scientists, etc. In some sense players like Poyer and Beasley brought this on themselves by airing their opinions publicly so they have to take some responsibility for that, but now the players have all decided to stop talking about it. Asking more questions won't accomplish anything.

 

Again, I don't think you actually heard the question. It was not "Jordan, what do you think about covid vaccines?"

[HappyDays]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Again, I don't think you actually heard the question. It was not "Jordan, what do you think about covid vaccines?"

 

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. And you could tell he was trying to sidestep around asking how the vaccines would affect the team as a whole. McDermott and Beane have openly talked about it. The players have decided as a team not to.

 

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

The truth has already been found. We know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine.

 

And previously you said: "We don't have to pretend Wawrow asked the question because he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine."

 

Both of these strongly imply that Wawrow asked Poyer what he thought about the vaccine.  But Wawrow didn't ask what Poyer thought about the vaccine.  He asked about what Poyer thought about whether the NFL rules about vaccination would affect SJF for training camp, which IMO is a football question that is fair to ask.

 

Poyer said, essentially "nice try, that's still asking about the vaccine in my book, Next" which is also fair

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. 

 

So then why do you keep bringing up "he thinks people want to know what Poyer thinks about the vaccine"? 

 

I thought Poyer handled the question very well.

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. 

 

True, but journalists ask players questions that really aren't appropriate for them all the freakin' time.  They'll ask Mitch Morse or Jon Feliciano what he thought about the Bills pass rush inability to affect the opposing team's QB, like they're going to throw their teammates on D under the bus even if they watched defensive series.  One time Morse said straight out pretty much "I was too busy trying to solve some blocking issues with my OL coach to watch the defense"

 

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

 

Oh, Horsefeathers.  No one has claimed it was "some kind of noble journalistic pursuit".  People have just been countering the claims that

1) Wawrow is a hack

2) Not a journalist

3) asking an inappropriate question

There's a lot of space between "not a hack, yes a journalist, no the preferences of the interviewee (in an open interview) shouldn't restrict what questions get asked" and "some kind of noble journalistic pursuit". 

 

Let's not pretend that people in this thread spontaneously popped up to say "Wow, what a great question Wawrow asked, how Noble!  the epitome of journalism!"  No, not at all.  To the contrary, people chimed in defending Wawrow from what is (in some of our views) unfair criticism.  And even the defenders acknowledge that Wawrow's manner of asking questions is rambling and leaves a lot to be desired.

 

You're probably correct that Wawrow asked the question because he thinks it's a hot topic that people want to hear about.  Isn't that why all reporters ask questions?  I get it, you don't want to hear about it, but I think there are probably others who are interested in questions of the general family "how will the NFL rules affect the operations of my football team"?

[GunnerBill]

53 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No I heard, he asked him how the vaccine compliance would affect where training camp will be. Which, again, is not a question for Jordan Poyer. And you could tell he was trying to sidestep around asking how the vaccines would affect the team as a whole. McDermott and Beane have openly talked about it. The players have decided as a team not to.

 

The only reason I got into this discussion is I saw people trying to argue that Wawrow asked the question for some kind of noble journalistic pursuit, all I'm saying is he clearly just asked the question because it's a hot topic controversy and creates buzz. That's his right as a reporter. I'm just calling it what it is.

 

I disagree. It is a legimate question with a legitimate purpose. And I say that as someone who has sat in those rooms and asked questions I know the participant doesn't want to answer. 

[Shaw66]

I've been lurking around, looking at what people are saying here since I said my piece, but something Happy Days said got me to want to get reengaged.  

 

First, to be clear, I want to apologize to JW.  I think what I said may have been misinterpreted.  I didn't mean to disparage him by saying he was not a journalist.   My sense of the guy is that he works at his craft, he's written a lot of really good stuff, and I'm sure he does his best to adhere to the principles of journalism.   However, that doesn't change what his job is.   He is job is to create content, day after day.  His job is to write a couple hundred words about the Bills every couple of days that are meaningful, informative, and seem fresh.  Yes, scooping the other writers sometimes helps him write something that attracts extra readers, but Wawrow was not going to scoop anyone by asking these questions at an open press conference.   Everyone else would have been in on it immediately, and there would have been no scoop. 

 

Second, also to be clear, I've said and I continue to believe that he's free to ask whatever questions he wants.  That's up to him.   What I said was that by doing what he did, he will tend to limit the access he gets to the Bills.  It will tend to limit the quality of the responses he gets from the team, because if they're unhappy with the way he pursues them, the natural tendency of human beings, including the Bills, is to stay away from the guy.   From his point of view, it's bad for his business if he antagonizes the Bills, because it will affect his ability to write the kind of content his employer wants.  

 

So, as I've been reading the comments of people, I've been wondering why it is that what Wawrow did bothers me?   I mean, why do I care if he's doing something that may affect his job performance negatively?   If he can't figure out what's good for him and what isn't, that's his problem.   Then I read what Happy Days said - that the real reason that Wawrow asked the questions and persisted was that he was trying to create controversy, which Happy said is the currency of the internet these days.  Why create controversy?  Because it's easier to write a couple of hundred words about the Bills if there is a controversy pending.   If there's no controversy, it takes some creativity to write something that engages readers. 

 

And then I realized it:  What I don't like about Wawrow asking those questions is that he's trying to create controversy, and controversy is bad for my team!   That's the problem.   This is my team he's talking about, and he's trying to make my team look bad and he's trying to get the players on my team to argue with each other in the press.   He's trying to disrupt the community of players that McDermott works hard to create and maintain.   Is he trying to do this because he WANTS to make problems for the Bills?   No.  He's trying to create controversy because it will be easier to write about the Bills,  easier or more fun, or more interesting.   He's trying to disrupt what's going on within the Bills organization for his own benefit or entertainment.  

 

I don't need that and I don't want that.  Controversy is not good for my team.  It's not good for my team if Wawrow tricks Poyer in talking about something that he promised his teammates he wouldn't talk about.  It's not good for my team if Poyer says something about one of his teammates and then his teammate tweets a response.   The Bills are going to do whatever they do about the vaccination, and none of Wawrow's questions are going to change that.   But Wawrow's questions CAN change the team chemistry - I don't want that, and McDermott doesn't want that.  

 

There is nothing good for my team that was going to come out of Wawrow's questions to Poyer, and there was potentially something bad.  (And please don't try to tell me that JW's probing questions might cause Poyer to reconsider his point of view and that in turn might cause him to lead the Bills in a different direction that might be beneficial to the team.  It's true, it might, but a mid-air butterfly could have created an instantaneous micro-draft that might have pushed Norwood's kick inside the right upright, too.  Wawrow wasn't trying to improve the Bills' decision-making, and the chances that his questions actually would have an impact were miniscule.)

 

The simple fact is that I don't want my beat writers trying to stir up trouble with my team.  It isn't good for team, and I don't want it.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

The simple fact is that I don't want my beat writers trying to stir up trouble with my team.  It isn't good for team, and I don't want it.  

 

 

I don't think he is trying to stir up trouble. I don't accept that as his objective. Is he aware that is a potential byproduct of his questioning? I am sure he is. But that isn't a reason not to ask it. JW's primary responsibility is to do his job as a journalist. It is not to avoid asking the tough questions in case it rocks the boat.