cale Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 I think it's a good opinion piece... DiCesare Column?
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 I think it's a good opinion piece... DiCesare Column? 457841[/snapback] ...no punches pulled.
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 "...coincided with the organization's longest playoff drought in almost 20 years." As far as I can tell, the last playoff drought was 20 years ago. This is the equivalent of saying "this is the longest playoff drought since the last one...." Sorry, but when you have plenty of good points to make, you don't make bone-headed comments like that...I just couldn't read past that....
BillsObserver Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 "...coincided with the organization's longest playoff drought in almost 20 years." As far as I can tell, the last playoff drought was 20 years ago. This is the equivalent of saying "this is the longest playoff drought since the last one...." Sorry, but when you have plenty of good points to make, you don't make bone-headed comments like that...I just couldn't read past that.... 457874[/snapback] because you're perfect too... dan
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 What is it with the Buffalo News columnists and an appearent need to find fault down to the atomic level? When I lived in Pgh for 11 years and now here for 15, the writers talked about the game, made the occasional snotty comment, but nothing approaching the lynching which seems to be the norm in Bflo. now...
cale Posted September 28, 2005 Author Posted September 28, 2005 What is it with the Buffalo News columnists and an appearent need to find fault down to the atomic level? When I lived in Pgh for 11 years and now here for 15, the writers talked about the game, made the occasional snotty comment, but nothing approaching the lynching which seems to be the norm in Bflo. now... 457903[/snapback] Where's Pgh? Just wanted to know... I happen to think that with the exception of Jerry Sullivan, the columnists in WNY seem pretty fair. Sometimes a little too homer - but compared to NYC or Pittsburgh or Texas, the Bills have it easy... Charles
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 because you're perfect too... dan 457893[/snapback] I'm nowhere near perfect. I didn't say his facts were wrong, just that they undercut his point.
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Where's Pgh? Just wanted to know... I happen to think that with the exception of Jerry Sullivan, the columnists in WNY seem pretty fair. Sometimes a little too homer - but compared to NYC or Pittsburgh or Texas, the Bills have it easy... Charles 457911[/snapback] I don't know about Pgh. these days - I was referring to 15 years ago, when I lived there. Maybe it's just today's society - blame, blame, blame... I like the local guys here - Mark Curnutte and Geoff Hobson...they are both pretty much "just-the-facts" reporters, who point out problems but don't go for anyone's throat - exception being owner and former GM for 14 years - Mike Brown.
RJsackedagain Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 What is it with the Buffalo News columnists and an appearent need to find fault down to the atomic level? When I lived in Pgh for 11 years and now here for 15, the writers talked about the game, made the occasional snotty comment, but nothing approaching the lynching which seems to be the norm in Bflo. now... 457903[/snapback] Dude, you need to read the Detroit Free Press some time then .... one columnist keeps saying Matt Millen has "special photos" of the Ford family in order to keep his job
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Dude, you need to read the Detroit Free Press some time then .... one columnist keeps saying Matt Millen has "special photos" of the Ford family in order to keep his job 457999[/snapback] Gosh, what can I say? I live in the polite midwest.
dave mcbride Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 "...coincided with the organization's longest playoff drought in almost 20 years." As far as I can tell, the last playoff drought was 20 years ago. This is the equivalent of saying "this is the longest playoff drought since the last one...." Sorry, but when you have plenty of good points to make, you don't make bone-headed comments like that...I just couldn't read past that.... 457874[/snapback] ??? i have no idea what you're talking about. what's wrong with saying what he said? it's gramatically and logically correct. this playoff drought is the longest since the one 20 years ago. not only is he implying this, he's actually saying it.
DeeRay Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 imagine that... he's saying the same thing Deeray's been saying for the past year and a half... just a lot more quite polite and eloquent.
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 ??? i have no idea what you're talking about. what's wrong with saying what he said? it's gramatically and logically correct. this playoff drought is the longest since the one 20 years ago. not only is he implying this, he's actually saying it. 458024[/snapback] Oops, I take that back. I forgot about the 1994 and 1997 seasons. If you consider a year out of the playoffs a "drought," then I guess how you can support what he said. Otherwise, this also ties for the shortest playoff drought in 20 years as well, and that's my point. Then he excuses the 3-13 season as a "salary cap hell" year when talking of TD's record as GM (probably not to be gracious but because it still left him with a losing record), so if he also erased that year from the drought it would be shorter than the previous "drought." He also wasn't around for the first year of the drought, and the reason it started to begin with, so that cuts Donahoe's "responsibility" for the drought by another year. This team isn't the Cowboys. We don't have a history of perennially making the playoffs and are suddenly in a drought. We are a team that has sniffed the playoffs a couple times before a wonderful run of playoff and Super Bowl appearances. If we were like the Cowboys I would understand him "comparing droughts." I don't like this drought and would love to see us return to the playoffs again, but I just think he detracts from his point with that comment.
dave mcbride Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Oops, I take that back. I forgot about the 1994 and 1997 seasons. If you consider a year out of the playoffs a "drought," then I guess how you can support what he said. Otherwise, this also ties for the shortest playoff drought in 20 years as well, and that's my point. Then he excuses the 3-13 season as a "salary cap hell" year when talking of TD's record as GM (probably not to be gracious but because it still left him with a losing record), so if he also erased that year from the drought it would be shorter than the previous "drought." He also wasn't around for the first year of the drought, and the reason it started to begin with, so that cuts Donahoe's "responsibility" for the drought by another year. This team isn't the Cowboys. We don't have a history of perennially making the playoffs and are suddenly in a drought. We are a team that has sniffed the playoffs a couple times before a wonderful run of playoff and Super Bowl appearances. If we were like the Cowboys I would understand him "comparing droughts." I don't like this drought and would love to see us return to the playoffs again, but I just think he detracts from his point with that comment. 458081[/snapback] seriously, are you having a problem reading this? the bills haven't been in the playoffs since 1999. that's five years in a row. for four of those years, donohoe has run the show. even if i grant the salary cap BS excuse for the 2001 season -- and believe me, it was total BS -- that's a 3-season drought. as for 1994 and 1997, you conveniently neglect to mention that the bills went to the playoffs in 1995 and 1996. That makes them one-year droughts. as dicesare says, the last time the bills had a drought that long was close to 20 years ago: 1982-1987. If the Bills don't make it this year, it'll equal that drought. And Donohoe will have been around for 5 years of it. seriously, read it again. it's pretty clear. and it's factually correct.
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 seriously, are you having a problem reading this? the bills haven't been in the playoffs since 1999. that's five years in a row. for four of those years, donohoe has run the show. even if i grant the salary cap BS excuse for the 2001 season -- and believe me, it was total BS -- that's a 3-season drought. as for 1994 and 1997, you conveniently neglect to mention that the bills went to the playoffs in 1995 and 1996. That makes them one-year droughts. as dicesare says, the last time the bills had a drought that long was close to 20 years ago: 1982-1987. If the Bills don't make it this year, it'll equal that drought. And Donohoe will have been around for 5 years of it. seriously, read it again. it's pretty clear. and it's factually correct. 458100[/snapback] Fine. You think that a 1 year absence from the playoffs qualifies as a "drought." I don't, Wikipedia doesn't. That's fine. We agree to disagree on it. Let's move on...Or we can look at it another way: would things have been any different had we beaten the Steelers' scrubs to make the playoffs (thus ending the drought) only to get absolutely creamed in the first round? Would all be forgiven? Would TD then "get a pass" for our performance so far this year (which is one win ahead of where we were against a weaker schedule at this point last year...)?
IowaBill Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Fine. You think that a 1 year absence from the playoffs qualifies as a "drought." I don't, Wikipedia doesn't. That's fine. We agree to disagree on it. Let's move on...Or we can look at it another way: would things have been any different had we beaten the Steelers' scrubs to make the playoffs (thus ending the drought) only to get absolutely creamed in the first round? Would all be forgiven? Would TD then "get a pass" for our performance so far this year (which is one win ahead of where we were against a weaker schedule at this point last year...)? 458150[/snapback] I would caution using Wikipedia as some sort of unimpeachable source. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Van Miller. It gives a description of him calling the Dolphins game when Jim Kelly dove in from the 2 yard line to win the game and then goes on to state that that was the game that broke the 20 consecutive loosing streak against the Dolphins. That streak was actually broken years earlier when Joe Ferguson was the QB and I believe Marino was a rookie. I think almost anybody is allowed to edit or make a Wikipedia entry. No fact checking needed, any old opinion will do. I am not sure their definition of drought is right or wrong, but using Wikipedia as a source is a bad idea.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Fine. You think that a 1 year absence from the playoffs qualifies as a "drought." I don't, Wikipedia doesn't. That's fine. We agree to disagree on it. Let's move on...Or we can look at it another way: would things have been any different had we beaten the Steelers' scrubs to make the playoffs (thus ending the drought) only to get absolutely creamed in the first round? Would all be forgiven? Would TD then "get a pass" for our performance so far this year (which is one win ahead of where we were against a weaker schedule at this point last year...)? 458150[/snapback] No disrespect, but that's just stupid, Dan. And I expect better from you. If the Bills made the playoffs last year, and then got creamed in the first round in the playoffs, things would be completely different. Drew would still be our quarterback. At this point in the season, we would be 1-2, people would be slitting their throats about the quarterback play and why TD sucks and demanding his resignation for not knowing that Bledsoe stinks and standing pat when it was clear that Losman was the answer and needs to play, even if he makes some rookie mistakes.
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 Food Fight!!...excuse me...Drought Fight!
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 I would caution using Wikipedia as some sort of unimpeachable source. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Van Miller. It gives a description of him calling the Dolphins game when Jim Kelly dove in from the 2 yard line to win the game and then goes on to state that that was the game that broke the 20 consecutive loosing streak against the Dolphins. That streak was actually broken years earlier when Joe Ferguson was the QB and I believe Marino was a rookie. I think almost anybody is allowed to edit or make a Wikipedia entry. No fact checking needed, any old opinion will do. I am not sure their definition of drought is right or wrong, but using Wikipedia as a source is a bad idea. 458169[/snapback] I wasn't using it as an "unimpeachable source," just a source. I did a dictionary lookup of drought and of all the definitions I got on the first page the Wikipedia one was the only one that referred to sports. I will add you to the "one year with no playoff appearances = drought" group, and will continue to agree to disagree with you as well. And the whole point of the Wikipedia concept is that you don't have to stand there cursing the darkness. Go ahead and submit your correction, it will get in...While you are at it, you can correct the entry for "drought" so that it accounts for a one year absence from the playoffs....
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2005 Posted September 28, 2005 No disrespect, but that's just stupid, Dan. And I expect better from you. If the Bills made the playoffs last year, and then got creamed in the first round in the playoffs, things would be completely different. Drew would still be our quarterback. At this point in the season, we would be 1-2, people would be slitting their throats about the quarterback play and why TD sucks and demanding his resignation for not knowing that Bledsoe stinks and standing pat when it was clear that Losman was the answer and needs to play, even if he makes some rookie mistakes. 458171[/snapback] I will use this post as an example that I will admit when I am completely wrong about something. K-Dog, you are right, I was wrong.
Recommended Posts