Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 You know it's a bad season when Sullivan is right more than he's wrong: Sullivan.
smokinandjokin Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 You're correct JSP. I read that article this morning and thought the same thing. London saying they could've been 10-6 with a few plays here or there? Please. I like Sullivan's rebuttal: The Bills were 28th in the NFL in total offense, 30th in red-zone offense, 29th in total defense, 31st against the run, dead last in both third-down and red-zone defensive efficiency. They were outscored by 96 points - 93 in second halves. They were entirely worthy of their 5-11 record.
sweet baboo Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 That's another reason not to bring Mularkey back. If he comes back, Mularkey will be coaching for his job and trying to sustain the myth that he has a playoff team on his hands. But the main objective for the organization should be finding out, once and for all, if Losman is the quarterback of the future. also key Mularkey could've tested the waters with JP this season and still had good job security
zonabb Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 It's so easy to be Sullivan. Always pointing fingers and and playing General after the war. And then come forward with vague ideas of how to fix problems with nary a shred of "guts" to actually say something that shows he put even a minute of thought into his analysis. Stats, oh how I love stats. I love when morons like Sullivan use rankings like 29th and 30th. What does it mean Jerry? How about some quantitative analysis to show how bad they were. Those mean nothing without some further review. Like, how many standards deviations from the norm were they? That would tell us how bad those rankings mean. For all we know, there was only 500 yards separating 1st from 30th. I doubt it, but without that info, who's to know. The guy is a hack. He'd be out of a job if this town had more than one paper because a real sports journalist with less anger and self-doubt would eat his lunch. So here's a coupe numbers for you Jerry.... 49, as in the numbered market you work in. So Jerome, if you're going to sling your BS at football players and managers and hold them to the fire professionally (it's sports afterall), what's that make you? 5, number of the market you WISH you had the ability, skill, personality, etc. to work in. 1, newspapers in this town that makes your job a joke
Mark VI Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 Unfortunately, the owner may be taking the easy way out. Offer up TD to the masses and just shuffle Modrak into his chair, keeping Dunderhead as Coach. A new DC and OC ? Mularkey reminds me of GW in his lame duck year. Who wants to come here with a HC on shaky grounds ? The teams with new HC's will attract the good coordinators, knowing HC's get 2-3 years to show something. Mularkey must give up ALL playcalling to someone else. I've seen enough bad swing passes to Shelton to last a lifetime. Wyche may be his only option at OC. Call the plays from upstairs, with the old Benglas playbook from the late 80's, early 90's. ...and get a F#*king TE into the playbook, for the love of God. Everett finally gets to play. Outside of our obvious OL/DL needs, I would draft another TE, since Campbell,Euhus,Nuefeld etc. are complete junk.
smokinandjokin Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 Stats, oh how I love stats. I love when morons like Sullivan use rankings like 29th and 30th. What does it mean Jerry? How about some quantitative analysis to show how bad they were. Those mean nothing without some further review. Like, how many standards deviations from the norm were they? That would tell us how bad those rankings mean. For all we know, there was only 500 yards separating 1st from 30th. I doubt it, but without that info, who's to know. 549904[/snapback] I appreciate what you're saying, but don't we all love our defense and special teams when they are #1??? Then the rankings mean something. Well, the rankings above mean the Bills are in the bottom 3 (out of 32) in some very important areas (red zone) which often equate to victories and losses. You are upset because he doesn't give any solutions for the team, he just lists stats. Well, I think that was the point of this article. The team was not a few plays away from being a contender. They were very, very bad in several different aspects, and it would be a mistake to overlook those stats.
Johnny Coli Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 It's so easy to be Sullivan. Always pointing fingers and and playing General after the war. And then come forward with vague ideas of how to fix problems with nary a shred of "guts" to actually say something that shows he put even a minute of thought into his analysis. 549904[/snapback] This comes up a lot when any one of a number of sports columnists for the two Boston papers has the “audacity” to not lock-step in and throw praise around for the local squads. The issue is what is a columnists’ job? They have maybe two columns a week to opine on local sports/politics, whatever their beat may be. It is their job to dig for stories, but they are not exclusively constrained by a reporters’ “just the facts, ma’am” approach to dispensing the news. It is their job to create a bit of controversy, get a few scoops now and then, and sell subscriptions to their rag. Is Sullivan a hack? It probably speaks to whether-or-not you agree with him on a consistent basis. I don’t read every one of his columns, but in this case I think he is dead-on.
GG Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 It's so easy to be Sullivan. Always pointing fingers and and playing General after the war. And then come forward with vague ideas of how to fix problems with nary a shred of "guts" to actually say something that shows he put even a minute of thought into his analysis. 549904[/snapback] Bravo. If Sully was held to even half the standard he holds the teams he's covering, he'd be fired long ago. Here's a news scoop after the season ends: Losman has started only eight games. He showed progress later in the year, but many of his teammates don't have faith in him. After Sunday's game, one prominent Bill was asked how many players felt Losman wasn't ready. "Try most of them," he said. Hey, Mr. Super Columnist, don't you think that the readers would have been more interested in this question in August? What a hack.
Tcali Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 You're correct JSP. I read that article this morning and thought the same thing. London saying they could've been 10-6 with a few plays here or there? Please. I like Sullivan's rebuttal: 549886[/snapback] So many Bills fans are so delusional. 5-11 is just about right for our talent level.
firstngoal Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 It's so easy to be Sullivan. Always pointing fingers and and playing General after the war. And then come forward with vague ideas of how to fix problems with nary a shred of "guts" to actually say something that shows he put even a minute of thought into his analysis. Stats, oh how I love stats. I love when morons like Sullivan use rankings like 29th and 30th. What does it mean Jerry? How about some quantitative analysis to show how bad they were. Those mean nothing without some further review. Like, how many standards deviations from the norm were they? That would tell us how bad those rankings mean. For all we know, there was only 500 yards separating 1st from 30th. I doubt it, but without that info, who's to know. The guy is a hack. He'd be out of a job if this town had more than one paper because a real sports journalist with less anger and self-doubt would eat his lunch. So here's a coupe numbers for you Jerry.... 49, as in the numbered market you work in. So Jerome, if you're going to sling your BS at football players and managers and hold them to the fire professionally (it's sports afterall), what's that make you? 5, number of the market you WISH you had the ability, skill, personality, etc. to work in. 1, newspapers in this town that makes your job a joke 549904[/snapback] At least he tells it like it is not like some Buffalo Homers that still thought this team had a chance of making the playoffs at the midway point. I'd rather have someone like that then a kiss-arss like some of those journalists.
The Avenger Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 It's so easy to be Sullivan. Always pointing fingers and and playing General after the war. And then come forward with vague ideas of how to fix problems with nary a shred of "guts" to actually say something that shows he put even a minute of thought into his analysis. Stats, oh how I love stats. I love when morons like Sullivan use rankings like 29th and 30th. What does it mean Jerry? How about some quantitative analysis to show how bad they were. Those mean nothing without some further review. Like, how many standards deviations from the norm were they? That would tell us how bad those rankings mean. For all we know, there was only 500 yards separating 1st from 30th. I doubt it, but without that info, who's to know. The guy is a hack. He'd be out of a job if this town had more than one paper because a real sports journalist with less anger and self-doubt would eat his lunch. So here's a coupe numbers for you Jerry.... 49, as in the numbered market you work in. So Jerome, if you're going to sling your BS at football players and managers and hold them to the fire professionally (it's sports afterall), what's that make you? 5, number of the market you WISH you had the ability, skill, personality, etc. to work in. 1, newspapers in this town that makes your job a joke 549904[/snapback] And what is Jerry Sullivan's job? I think he's a guy paid to write about the Bills - uncover stories when there is actual news and write columns with a healthy bit of his own opinion in them. Like all other sportswriters, his job is to sell papers and generate talk around the water cooler about the team. Vague ideas about how to fix problems? It's not his job to fix the problems - if it was he'd be in line for the GM job and pull in more than 10 times the salary he's currently paid. If he did come up with ideas people would be blasting him as a guy who is a writer, not a GM. Pointing out that he works in a small market doesn't mean anything. Buffalo is a small market - that's just the way it is. By your logic, everyone who works in the Buffalo media is a no talent hack who doesn't have the skills to work in larger markets - guess WNY is doomed to be without decent jornalism because they aren't New York or Los Angeles. Could it be that there is some decent talent in the Buffalo media because people WANT to work and live there? For as much as people bash Buffalo, sure seems like people who live or have ever lived there love the place and think of it fondly (I know I do - it's a great place). I'm tired of people blasting the local media as a bunch of hacks for doing their job. Folks - there is no super journalist out there, in any market, who knows all, reports all (with attributed sources, of course), gives you just the facts without opinion and has a great bit of exciting team news every day. If you don't like opinion, lack of named sources, use of sports statistics and failure to lay out how to fix problems, don't read a column by a guy like Jerry Sullivan. Better yet, write your own damn column and let's see what you have to say.
d_wag Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 At least he tells it like it is not like some Buffalo Homers that still thought this team had a chance of making the playoffs at the midway point. I'd rather have someone like that then a kiss-arss like some of those journalists. 549969[/snapback] don't forgot the homers who were supporting TD last off-season, giving him the "benefit of the doubt" for his off-season moves (or lack there of), labeling his cheapness as good salary cap management, and mocking anyone who made fun of his overall strategy...... man, look how things have changed in a year around here.........
sweet baboo Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 man, look how things have changed in a year around here......... 550004[/snapback] did you expect things to go merrily on their way with the way things progressed this season?
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 I aggree with what Sully says here but as far as his writing it just shows that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
d_wag Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 did you expect things to go merrily on their way with the way things progressed this season? 550016[/snapback] no, but i expected people to have a little more foresight given the previous 4 seasons.......another horrible off-season, another horrible season -- no surprise there.......
UConn James Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 And what is Jerry Sullivan's job? I think he's a guy paid to write about the Bills - uncover stories when there is actual news and write columns with a healthy bit of his own opinion in them. Like all other sportswriters, his job is to sell papers and generate talk around the water cooler about the team. Vague ideas about how to fix problems? It's not his job to fix the problems - if it was he'd be in line for the GM job and pull in more than 10 times the salary he's currently paid. If he did come up with ideas people would be blasting him as a guy who is a writer, not a GM. Pointing out that he works in a small market doesn't mean anything. Buffalo is a small market - that's just the way it is. By your logic, everyone who works in the Buffalo media is a no talent hack who doesn't have the skills to work in larger markets - guess WNY is doomed to be without decent jornalism because they aren't New York or Los Angeles. Could it be that there is some decent talent in the Buffalo media because people WANT to work and live there? For as much as people bash Buffalo, sure seems like people who live or have ever lived there love the place and think of it fondly (I know I do - it's a great place). I'm tired of people blasting the local media as a bunch of hacks for doing their job. Folks - there is no super journalist out there, in any market, who knows all, reports all (with attributed sources, of course), gives you just the facts without opinion and has a great bit of exciting team news every day. If you don't like opinion, lack of named sources, use of sports statistics and failure to lay out how to fix problems, don't read a column by a guy like Jerry Sullivan. Better yet, write your own damn column and let's see what you have to say. 550003[/snapback] Hammer --> Nail
Sound_n_Fury Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 Better yet, write your own damn column and let's see what you have to say. 550003[/snapback] That's the point of having of TSW. Who needs Warren Buffet's rag to be the arbiter of the "truth," especially when it's from Sully's perspective? Maybe that's why the News circulation figures are dropping like a stone (our booming economy has something to do with that as well, unfortunately )
dave mcbride Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 That's the point of having of TSW. Who needs Warren Buffet's rag to be the arbiter of the "truth," especially when it's from Sully's perspective? Maybe that's why the News circulation figures are dropping like a stone (our booming economy has something to do with that as well, unfortunately ) 550074[/snapback] actually, the news overall has become a far better paper now than it ever was. its investigative reporting and "public" journalism is heads and shoulders above what it once was in the 70s-80s, and that's largely attributable to having a great editor (a woman whose name i forgot). as for their circulation numbers dropping, that's hardly something to celebrate. newspapers are a great thing.
The Avenger Posted January 3, 2006 Posted January 3, 2006 That's the point of having of TSW. Who needs Warren Buffet's rag to be the arbiter of the "truth," especially when it's from Sully's perspective? Maybe that's why the News circulation figures are dropping like a stone (our booming economy has something to do with that as well, unfortunately ) 550074[/snapback] That's just it - Sullivan isn't trying to tell you "the truth" - he's writing his column and giving you his opinion. If he was reporting a story as fact and wasn't honest with his facts there would be a problem, but that's not the complaint I'm hearing. As for declining circulation, I think you'll see that everywhere - it's the nature of Technology and the Internet. 15 years ago we'd all be arguing our Bills items amongst one another via letters to the newspaper instead of on a message board like this. I'm a news junkie, but even I don't read the paper much anymore - by the time the story is filed, printed and delivered to my door it is old news. Ironically, I think some of the value newspapers still have is not in their reporting of factual news, but in their opinion columns, which seem to get Jerry Sullivan and other "hacks" attacked.
Recommended Posts