Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Returning the convo to the original subject

 

[LeGOATski]

21 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

We'll find out more on Wednesday, when the Bills are first set to speak. I'm expecting them to circle the wagons on the issue, which is really all they can do. But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June.

Alas, you won't have the pleasure or pain (pick one, don't care) of having me there asking questions that day as I'll be tied up handling NHL free agency. I'll get there at some point.

But those expecting not to hear questions about COVID, given what's gone on, are mistaken, especially when Cole Beasley is made available.

 

jw

 

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

[Delete This Account]

17 hours ago, 716er said:

 

Thanks for the effort here, JW. I think I speak for most in saying thanks for the coverage over the years and providing balanced insight. 

 

In regards to the quoted point, will un-vaxxed players be subject to the media in the same way the vaxxed ones are?

 

That's a good question. We are getting player availability once camp opens tomorrow. Media are required to be vaccinated and have passed a COVID test in order to have access. It hasn't been made clear if the players are required to be vaccinated. That said, those who are unvaxed are required to take daily COVID tests so I'm assuming they will be made available to us.

15 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

 

Sure. The issue just magically disappears, just like COVID was supposed to by Easter 2020. Grow up.

[LeGOATski]

13 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

Sure. The issue just magically disappears, just like COVID was supposed to by Easter 2020. Grow up.

I guess you don't subscribe to the notion that it's not much of an issue and won't affect the locker room. However, the players (Cole & Hughes, and others involved) seem to be putting aside their differences and getting ready for football.

 

I understand you're on the defensive here, but my take is not irrational.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

I guess you don't subscribe to the notion that it's not much of an issue and won't affect the locker room. However, the players (Cole & Hughes, and others involved) seem to be putting aside their differences and getting ready for football.

 

I understand you're on the defensive here, but my take is not irrational.

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

I didn't say they shouldn't ask about it.

But, like Wawrow says, they'll circle the wagons on the issue. It's incorrect to say it's difficult to suggest they're focused on football now and will tighten up leaks. They can suggest it and totally do it.

[Delete This Account]

18 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

You quoted the wrong person, but fair enough. Let's see how much of a distraction it is when the season is underway. 

 

We'll circle back to this.

 

We already know the angle you're going to take, regardless.

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

You quoted the wrong person, but fair enough. Let's see how much of a distraction it is when the season is underway. 

 

We'll circle back to this.

 

We already know the angle you're going to take, regardless.

 

1. I'm not going to be there tomorrow and instead covering NHL free agency.

2. It's the angle because the players and the team, based on their comments and outbursts, have made this this angle.

3. I would be disappointed in my colleagues if they didn't ask these questions.

4. People thinking this isn't an issue can put their hands on their ears and yell "lalalalalalal," as much as they like. It's still there.

 

jw

Edited July 27, 2021 by john wawrow

[teef]

i'm just excited i learned a new word...slapdick.  i'm going to use this in conversation with my wife later, but i'm definitely not going to use it properly.

[LeGOATski]

3 hours ago, teef said:

i'm just excited i learned a new word...slapdick.  i'm going to use this in conversation with my wife later, but i'm definitely not going to use it properly.

Is it possible to have a slapdick emoji as a reaction button on here?

[Shaw66]

lalalalalala

[JoPoy88]

6 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

well no you miss an pretty important fact - JW said that because Allen and others said it was buttoned up and handled “inside the team” back in OTAs or whenever he addressed it. Between then and now? Multiple Beasley meltdowns on twitter. So what Allen said didn’t really hold for Beasley did it (or Hughes, or Feliciano, for that matter.) 

 

I do think you are right that once camp starts they’ll be saying less about this, but the whole point was why are reporters being shut down trying to ask questions when some players just turn around and go on the offensive about Covid stuff?

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

lalalalalala

great contribution 🙄. Very unlike you in all honesty. Take the L on this one and move on you post to excellent stuff almost all the time.

Edited July 28, 2021 by JoPoy88

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

 

John, 

What are “NFL minimum thresholds” and what impact does meeting them have?  I can’t keep up

 

Thanks

[LeGOATski]

24 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

well no you miss an pretty important fact - JW said that because Allen and others said it was buttoned up and handled “inside the team” back in OTAs or whenever he addressed it. Between then and now? Multiple Beasley meltdowns on twitter. So what Allen said didn’t really hold for Beasley did it (or Hughes, or Feliciano, for that matter.) 

 

I do think you are right that once camp starts they’ll be saying less about this, but the whole point was why are reporters being shut down trying to ask questions when some players just turn around and go on the offensive about Covid stuff?

I didn't miss that. The players and coaches will probably give a similar answer in the next press conference. I wouldn't take them less seriously now just because one guy slipped up and caused a stir. Writers will spin it whichever way they want until the season starts...or finishes...and we see the results.

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

 

I don't think it would be fair to call any piece on the risk this poses to harmony as speculative. Indeed I think the speculation here is your first para above... that McDermott can just click his fingers and re-establish a party line. 

 

Beasley basically tweeted the other day that he would not have abided by that line had he been made available to media in the spring. So who is to say he suddenly will now?

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

 

Beasley himself said when there was reference by a media member to the approach players made available to the media in the spring took "well I wasn't made available". 

 

I don't think he would have toed the party line in spring on the basis of those comments had he been put infront of the media. It is hope and speculation that he suddenly will now.

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

John, 

What are “NFL minimum thresholds” and what impact does meeting them have?  I can’t keep up

 

Thanks

 

The NFL as I understand it has still not come out formally on the threshold but multiple NFL teams have acknowledged the 85% number over the spring and summer (the Bears GM yesterday being the latest). That hasn't come from nowhere. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by GunnerBill

[LeGOATski]

55 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think it would be fair to call any piece on the risk this poses to harmony as speculative. Indeed I think the speculation here is your first para above... that McDermott can just click his fingers and re-establish a party line. 

 

Beasley basically tweeted the other day that he would not have abided by that line had he been made available to media in the spring. So who is to say he suddenly will now?

I would argue that there was never a party line, unless you call focusing on football a party line. What McDermott needs to do is more like controlling a narrative. He can easily do that and get these guys to focus on football.

 

Two questions:

1. Will they make Beasley available to the media?

2. Does Beasley even want to speak to the media?

 

I assume both are a no.

 

This is the take I bolded in the original comment and the only thing I've been arguing is incorrect:

 

"But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June."

 

Don't be surprised when they do both: focus on football and keep it in house.

 

And if he can't, Beasley gets cut. It would suck, but the ship isn't changing course for one player. His actions regarding the protocol are the big issue, but it's a pretty straightforward one.

 

Also don't be surprised if one of our respected journalists still writes a speculative article about the turbulence under the surface...

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I would argue that there was never a party line, unless you call focusing on football a party line. What McDermott needs to do is more like controlling a narrative. He can easily do that and get these guys to focus on football.

 

Two questions:

1. Will they make Beasley available to the media?

2. Does Beasley even want to speak to the media?

 

I assume both are a no.

 

This is the take I bolded in the original comment and the only thing I've been arguing is incorrect:

 

"But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June."

 

Don't be surprised when they do both: focus on football and keep it in house.

 

And if he can't, Beasley gets cut. It would suck, but the ship isn't changing course for one player. His actions regarding the protocol are the big issue, but it's a pretty straightforward one.

 

Also don't be surprised if one of our respected journalists still writes a speculative article about the turbulence under the surface...

 

You can argue what you like but there was very clearly a party line in spring. Equally the Bills can "control the narrative" ie. spin all they like but they cannot tell you with a straight face they are keeping it in house. 

 

The beat reporters would not be doing their jobs if they didn't keep asking the question when you have had a summer full of public twitter outbursts.

 

You seem to be under the apprehension that if the Bills say "nothing to see here" the media should just accept it. That ain't the way it works. There is a story there. They need to keep going for it. It is very literally their job. 

[LeGOATski]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You can argue what you like but there was very clearly a party line in spring. Equally the Bills can "control the narrative" ie. spin all they like but they cannot tell you with a straight face they are keeping it in house. 

 

The beat reporters would not be doing their jobs if they didn't keep asking the question when you have had a summer full of public twitter outbursts.

 

You seem to be under the apprehension that if the Bills say "nothing to see here" the media should just accept it. That ain't the way it works. There is a story there. They need to keep going for it. It is very literally their job. 

A party line is an official stance. It's not possible to have an official stance in this situation. "Focusing on football" and "keeping it in house" are deflections, not party lines. Deflection is their method for controlling the narrative. Just making that clear.

 

I don't think it will be hard for them to start deflecting again.

 

I've never said reporters shouldn't ask questions. I don't think they should ask stupid ones, but it's not a perfect world...

 

The state of the Bills is still to be determined now that they're all back together. I'm not advising against a wait-and-see approach, but my problem since this thread resurfaced is that Wawrow's comments indicate some reporters will push a certain angle, regardless of the answer they get. 

 

They won't see it until they believe it...as Mahomes so elegantly put.

 

I believe we're already seeing the Bills come back together and starting to gel again...