Kelly the Dog Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. But the main thrust was that Mike Williams is underperforming and the coaches and TD want to say that he is still good and this wasn't a demotion, which he repeatedly infers is just bull sh--. Which is true. He starts out the article ribbing TD for circulating an article at PFW about how poorly Bryant McKinnie has been playing. And ends it with an incredibly snide remark about how in wednesday's Pioneer Press there was a little blurb about how "Bryant McKinnie is quietly having an outstanding season", which he quoted. He just failed to keep the last four words of that quote from the Press, which were "according to the coaches" in an article mostly criticizing the Vikings offense and the "laughable" prediction of their coach: "We will be excellent on offense. That's one thing I can stand here and promise you. I know offense.", and that Michael bennett will have 1600 yards. Nice job, Jerry. Tool. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13117358.htm
zook Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. But the main thrust was that Mike Williams is underperforming and the coaches and TD want to say that he is still good and this wasn't a demotion, which he repeatedly infers is just bull sh--. Which is true. He starts out the article ribbing TD for circulating an article at PFW about how poorly Bryant McKinnie has been playing. And ends it with an incredibly snide remark about how in wednesday's Pioneer Press there was a little blurb about how "Bryant McKinnie is quietly having an outstanding season", which he quoted. He just failed to keep the last four words of that quote from the Press, which were "according to the coaches" in an article mostly criticizing the Vikings offense and the "laughable" prediction of their coach: "We will be excellent on offense. That's one thing I can stand here and promise you. I know offense.", and that Michael bennett will have 1600 yards. Nice job, Jerry. Tool. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13117358.htm 499311[/snapback] I was going to post the same thing - I hate this guy....he has never said a positive thing about the Bills in his career....I e-mail him every week and tell him what an a-hole he is.....nothing but constant negativity
SilverNRed Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. But the main thrust was that Mike Williams is underperforming and the coaches and TD want to say that he is still good and this wasn't a demotion, which he repeatedly infers is just bull sh--. Which is true. He starts out the article ribbing TD for circulating an article at PFW about how poorly Bryant McKinnie has been playing. And ends it with an incredibly snide remark about how in wednesday's Pioneer Press there was a little blurb about how "Bryant McKinnie is quietly having an outstanding season", which he quoted. He just failed to keep the last four words of that quote from the Press, which were "according to the coaches" in an article mostly criticizing the Vikings offense and the "laughable" prediction of their coach: "We will be excellent on offense. That's one thing I can stand here and promise you. I know offense.", and that Michael bennett will have 1600 yards. Nice job, Jerry. Tool. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13117358.htm 499311[/snapback] I hope he keeps it up. With writing like that, it's only a matter of time before The New York Times hires him and we never have to hear from him again. Note to idiot reporters: The entire world has access to this "internet" thing that lets us perform quick "fact checks". You are advised not to make things up.
dave mcbride Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. But the main thrust was that Mike Williams is underperforming and the coaches and TD want to say that he is still good and this wasn't a demotion, which he repeatedly infers is just bull sh--. Which is true. He starts out the article ribbing TD for circulating an article at PFW about how poorly Bryant McKinnie has been playing. And ends it with an incredibly snide remark about how in wednesday's Pioneer Press there was a little blurb about how "Bryant McKinnie is quietly having an outstanding season", which he quoted. He just failed to keep the last four words of that quote from the Press, which were "according to the coaches" in an article mostly criticizing the Vikings offense and the "laughable" prediction of their coach: "We will be excellent on offense. That's one thing I can stand here and promise you. I know offense.", and that Michael bennett will have 1600 yards. Nice job, Jerry. Tool. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13117358.htm 499311[/snapback] but mckinnie is actually playing well this year.
The Jokeman Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 but mckinnie is actually playing well this year. 499381[/snapback] According to the numbers he's given up .25 less sacks in four more starts (two more games) than Big Mike. Also he has yet to be penalized this year and I don't think the Vikings have plans shifting him from Left OT to OG.
Peter Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 If I recall correctly, Sullivan was all in favor of drafting Williams over McKinnie -- prior to the draft.
e-dog Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 The truth hurts, thus the hate for his articles. His job isn't to kiss the a**** of the Bills management.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 but mckinnie is actually playing well this year. 499381[/snapback] I have read where the last couple games he has played well. I saw the first two games and he was terrible in my opinion. He was repeatedly slow and beat. Loafed on running plays. I havent seen him the last few games but several reports say he picked up his play the second quarter of the season after a lousy first quarter. But I wasn't arguing at all whether Big Mike was performing as well or better than BM, MW has been injured the entire season. They both have been average in their careers. BM is a better pass blocker and MW is a better run blocker. Neither has been worth the money. The point of the post was about the disingenuous writing of Jerry Sullivan. He constantly slams the coaches and management for saying their players are better than they are, and then uses a quote to back his point coming from Mike Tice and his staff, but, um, conveniently failing to mention that it came from them, or from an article basically saying what fools the Vikings coaching staff is for their glowing predictions and mediocre to miserable results.
DeeRay Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 What's to argue? Is there anyone on the planet that is enamoured with Mike Williams' performace over the past 4 seasons? If there is, I'd suggest removing the rose colored goggles. The guy is exactly what Sully described... an underachiever ...a slacker who in know way, shape, or form plays up to his paycheck.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 What's to argue? Is there anyone on the planet that is enamoured with Mike Williams' performace over the past 4 seasons? If there is, I'd suggest removing the rose colored goggles. The guy is exactly what Sully described... an underachiever ...a slacker who in know way, shape, or form plays up to his paycheck. 499468[/snapback] Man, this is surprising coming out of you. Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit.
jester43 Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 sullivan could gain a lot of respect if he would not go so far over the top to slam the players and organization. there is plenty of legitimate stuff to bash them for, and i believe he should, but my problem is that he chooses to punctuate it with cheap shots that often are not justified. it is a shame because he is a lot like dickerson in that he sometimes has some really good insights. but then he turns around and cheapens them with all the ridiculous b.s. he feeds you. i always read his columns though, so i guess he wins.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 10, 2005 Author Posted November 10, 2005 sullivan could gain a lot of respect if he would not go so far over the top to slam the players and organization. there is plenty of legitimate stuff to bash them for, and i believe he should, but my problem is that he chooses to punctuate it with cheap shots that often are not justified. it is a shame because he is a lot like dickerson in that he sometimes has some really good insights. but then he turns around and cheapens them with all the ridiculous b.s. he feeds you. i always read his columns though, so i guess he wins. 499480[/snapback] Good points all around. He does have a lot of legitimate gripes. He is a disigenuous ass in how he chooses to express them in his columns. And you're right, he wins because we read and discuss them.
DeeRay Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Man, this is surprising coming out of you. Reading comprehension apparently isn't your strong suit. 499474[/snapback] Some of it, as usual, is well founded. Some isn't. So, what "isn't"? All of it's right on. Quibble about your 4 "smoking gun" harmless and innocuous words? What reporter states all of facts and reveals everything? They all put theri own slant and spin on anything they report. Have you listened to the news lately or notice how headlines hook you... and then in context isn't what it seems to be? In a nutshell, there ain't a reporter on the planet that could not be called a "dick".
bobblehead Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 Quibble about your 4 "smoking gun" harmless and innocuous words? Neither harmless nor innoculous.
krazykat Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 This morning's article is his usual blathering and blasting TD and the Bills and coaches. http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/13117358.htm 499311[/snapback] YEAH! How dare he criticize a team that's beaten three teams with 1, 2, and 3 wins while actually playing worse than last season. WTH's wrong with Sullivan. He'll be eating his hat when we beat Carolina in the Super Bowl.
e-dog Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 You can't criticize the Bills. Management or God forbid players. If your a "good Bills fan" you put the rosies on firmly and fill up the glass again. When your 3-5 there is a reason and writers like Sully are supposed to point them out. I like his column. Cripe we have enough cheerleaders that will follow the wagon down another losing season.
e-dog Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 You can't criticize the Bills. Management or God forbid players. If your a "good Bills fan" you put the rosies on firmly and fill up the glass again. When your 3-5 there is a reason and writers like Sully are supposed to point them out. I like his column. Cripe we have enough cheerleaders that will follow the wagon down another losing season.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 10, 2005 Posted November 10, 2005 What's to argue? Is there anyone on the planet that is enamoured with Mike Williams' performace over the past 4 seasons? If there is, I'd suggest removing the rose colored goggles. The guy is exactly what Sully described... an underachiever ...a slacker who in know way, shape, or form plays up to his paycheck. 499468[/snapback] Correct...but did Jerry Sullivan say that Mike Williams was going to be a bust BEFORE he was drafted? No. He favored drafting Williams over McKinnie. So now Jerry Sullivan, with full benefit of hindsight, declares TD a failure for drafting the wrong OT? Based on what? Because McKinnie, after four friggin years of being a waste of a roster spot, is finally starting to play well? Like I said in an earlier post, to blame TD for drafting Mike Williams is total hor$esh--. Mike Williams was an accross-the-board unanimous top pick at his position when he was drafted. No one though he had any issues that would have prevnted him from becoming a star NFL player. In fact, in the years since, it looked like Williams was a better pick than the underachieving, troublmaking McKinnie in Minnesota! It's funny how Jerry Sullivan says the MW pick "defines" Donahoes tenure, but his ballsy pick of Willis McGahee and the fleecing of a #1 pick from Atlanta for Peerless Price does not. Typical Jerry Sullivan ca-ca. The fault for Mike Williams' failure to succeed is 100% Mike Williams. Not becuase TD drafted him. Tom Donahoe has plenty of other legitimate reasons for criticsm, but drafting Mike Williams is not one of them. PTR
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts