todd Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 The guy was awfully silent last week after a win. This week, he can't contain his glee over a loss. Hey Sullivan - :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: - in the butt with a 2x4.
Toledo Bill Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 He does focus on the negative. I thought it was a good point about the play calling, however.
Justice Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 The guy was awfully silent last week after a win. This week, he can't contain his glee over a loss. Hey Sullivan - :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: - in the butt with a 2x4. 84283[/snapback] You can't argue with his logic
todd Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 He does focus on the negative. I thought it was a good point about the play calling, however. 84293[/snapback] Anyone can make a good point, especially if it's obvious. If I ever saw him I'd teach him how to smile with a toothless grin. Well, maybe not really, but punching the ass would bring me pleasure. Anyway, maybe there should be a note on all links to jerry sullivan articles that says "Warning: article written by prick"
dib Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I never liked his movies either, even when he starred with Dean Martin. What?
todd Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 You can't argue with his logic 84296[/snapback] Umm, yes you can. Here's his logic: everone sucks. Donahoe sucks. Mularkey sucks. Bledsoe sucks. I can argue with his logic. Donahoe doesn't suck, and mularkey doesn't suck. If you think that's the case, you might want to step away from the sauce. Why do you think Donahoe drafted McGahee? Hmm? Why do you think he drafted Losman? Hmmm? But of course all the idiots around here do is focus on the negative. But that's par for the course.
Kgun5 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Umm, yes you can. Here's his logic: everone sucks. Donahoe sucks. Mularkey sucks. Bledsoe sucks. I can argue with his logic. Donahoe doesn't suck, and mularkey doesn't suck. If you think that's the case, you might want to step away from the sauce. Why do you think Donahoe drafted McGahee? Hmm? Why do you think he drafted Losman? Hmmm? But of course all the idiots around here do is focus on the negative. But that's par for the course. 84305[/snapback] Reading Sullivan's column on a Monday is one of the few things that has given me pleasure during this train wreck of a season. It's nice to see the voice of reason and (gasp!) criticism of a team that is terrible not have to deal with the censure that similarly minded posts often have to on this board. Sullivan calls them as he sees them. What I want to know is what you're seeing to defend the last 4 years of Bills football.
34-78-83 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Reading Sullivan's column on a Monday is one of the few things that has given me pleasure during this train wreck of a season. It's nice to see the voice of reason and (gasp!) criticism of a team that is terrible not have to deal with the censure that similarly minded posts often have to on this board. Sullivan calls them as he sees them. What I want to know is what you're seeing to defend the last 4 years of Bills football. 84322[/snapback] You obviously weren't familiar with Sullivan during the "glory days" of the early nineties. He sounded much the same as he does today and had the same unfounded yet consistent negative opinions on teams that were going 13-3.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Umm, yes you can. Here's his logic: everone sucks. Donahoe sucks. Mularkey sucks. Bledsoe sucks. I can argue with his logic. Donahoe doesn't suck, and mularkey doesn't suck. If you think that's the case, you might want to step away from the sauce. Why do you think Donahoe drafted McGahee? Hmm? Why do you think he drafted Losman? Hmmm? But of course all the idiots around here do is focus on the negative. But that's par for the course. 84305[/snapback] Mularkey doesn't suck but the jury is definitely still out on Donahoe. He has left Mularkey out to dry with a QB who is NOT suited for 95% of today's NFL, and a terrible situation to manage at RB. For his first year, Mularkey has not been given every opportunity to succeed. You are right that for now the future looks bright with Losman in the wings (though we paid a king's ransom for him), and McGahee does look to be a special back. Who knows, maybe we get something good for Travis -- I think conditional draft picks might be the best we get there. But that's four-five years of writeoffs to get there, which kinda does suck. The good thing is that Mularkey is getting real tests in his first year and kind of having his feet held to the fire more than necessary, which is to say it should only get easier for him. I'm confident he'll be good for this team in the long run.
bobblehead Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Sullivan calls them as he sees them. What I want to know is what you're seeing to defend the last 4 years of Bills football. 84322[/snapback] Nice spin job. I don't recall anyone on this thread defending the last 4 years of Bills Football. We suck, everyone knows this, thanks. Sullivan calls them as he sees them - that's exactly Todd's point.
Kgun5 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 You obviously weren't familiar with Sullivan during the "glory days" of the early nineties. He sounded much the same as he does today and had the same unfounded yet consistent negative opinions on teams that were going 13-3. 84330[/snapback] Yes, I am familiar with those days and much of that writing. The columns he wrote back then were nothing like those of today (unless you're speaking of day-after Super Bowl entries). Of course he brought up negatives back then, but nothing like the scathing criticisms we see on a typical Monday now. Many of his columns were praise-laden with a mention here or there about a way the Bills could get better. What's wrong with that? To say he "focused" on the negatives back then is crazy. He simply pointed out holes in very good teams that, perhaps you'll remember, never won the big one.
Paco Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 The guy was awfully silent last week after a win. This week, he can't contain his glee over a loss. Hey Sullivan - :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: - in the butt with a 2x4. 84283[/snapback] That's why I stopped reading him, Todd. It's just too obvious that he enjoys watching us lose. He loves to see the Bills fail and then tell everyone why they failed and then, when he can, tell everyone how RIGHT he was about the inevitable failure. I HATE people who find it necessary to remind anyone that they were right.
Kgun5 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Nice spin job. I don't recall anyone on this thread defending the last 4 years of Bills Football. We suck, everyone knows this, thanks. Sullivan calls them as he sees them - that's exactly Todd's point. 84343[/snapback] So...You'd rather Sullivan wrote about what he saw in his imagination? What would your column have looked like today?
34-78-83 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Yes, I am familiar with those days and much of that writing. The columns he wrote back then were nothing like those of today (unless you're speaking of day-after Super Bowl entries). Of course he brought up negatives back then, but nothing like the scathing criticisms we see on a typical Monday now. Many of his columns were praise-laden with a mention here or there about a way the Bills could get better. What's wrong with that? To say he "focused" on the negatives back then is crazy. He simply pointed out holes in very good teams that, perhaps you'll remember, never won the big one. 84346[/snapback] As I remember it the rants were very much the same as they are today. He's always spoken as if he knows better, as if he knows item one about football. When it comes down to it, he doesn't. He enjoys the losing and feels his opinions are a way of "talking straight" to the fans, and that every comment from OBD is a spin job. He hated Kelly for god's sake...
bobblehead Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 That's why I stopped reading him, Todd. It's just too obvious that he enjoys watching us lose. He loves to see the Bills fail and then tell everyone why they failed and then, when he can, tell everyone how RIGHT he was about the inevitable failure. I HATE people who find it necessary to remind anyone that they were right. 84347[/snapback] Jerry Sullivan must have got beat up alot as a kid, because the central theme of everything he produces centers around his own perceived toughness and his readers' perceived reaction to it. Everything that he produces hints of esteem issues. Sorry. He continously criticizes the lack of information coming out of the locker room. I thought his job was to use the resources of a reporter to get this information. I take it as a failure of his as a reporter. Unless, he is not a reporter and he is just merely a commentator. If so, then what is his relevance? My problem with him besides the above, is that he contributes absolutely nothing that resembles analysis and absolutely nothing that resembles insight, or insider knowledge, or anything that would suggest that he has any journalistic communication with the team itself.
jad1 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Mularkey doesn't suck but the jury is definitely still out on Donahoe. He has left Mularkey out to dry with a QB who is NOT suited for 95% of today's NFL, and a terrible situation to manage at RB. For his first year, Mularkey has not been given every opportunity to succeed. You are right that for now the future looks bright with Losman in the wings (though we paid a king's ransom for him), and McGahee does look to be a special back. Who knows, maybe we get something good for Travis -- I think conditional draft picks might be the best we get there. But that's four-five years of writeoffs to get there, which kinda does suck. The good thing is that Mularkey is getting real tests in his first year and kind of having his feet held to the fire more than necessary, which is to say it should only get easier for him. I'm confident he'll be good for this team in the long run. 84341[/snapback] TD drafted Losman, who, by most accounts, is suitable for today's NFL's offenses. Unfortunately, Losman broke his leg. I find it hard to believe that Losman wouldn't be the starter next week if he were healthy.
todd Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 You obviously weren't familiar with Sullivan during the "glory days" of the early nineties. He sounded much the same as he does today and had the same unfounded yet consistent negative opinions on teams that were going 13-3. 84330[/snapback] Thank you. Sullivan used to call for Jimbo to be benched all the time, even when we were going to SBs. He's a prick. for anyone who finds joy in his loathing of the Buffalo organization :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: .
todd Posted October 25, 2004 Author Posted October 25, 2004 Yes, I am familiar with those days and much of that writing. The columns he wrote back then were nothing like those of today (unless you're speaking of day-after Super Bowl entries). Of course he brought up negatives back then, but nothing like the scathing criticisms we see on a typical Monday now. Many of his columns were praise-laden with a mention here or there about a way the Bills could get better. What's wrong with that? To say he "focused" on the negatives back then is crazy. He simply pointed out holes in very good teams that, perhaps you'll remember, never won the big one. 84346[/snapback] Jerry - is that you? Are you defending yourself? Self-fellation is a talent that only few are blessed with.
Kgun5 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 As I remember it the rants were very much the same as they are today. He's always spoken as if he knows better, as if he knows item one about football. When it comes down to it, he doesn't. He enjoys the losing and feels his opinions are a way of "talking straight" to the fans, and that every comment from OBD is a spin job. He hated Kelly for god's sake... 84364[/snapback] I can understand how some could perceive him as arrogant. Since we're on the subject, I'd dare to say that Jim Kelly was also arrogant and it made him better. To say Sullivan enjoys losing is just childish. Perhaps Buffalo's troubles have made his articles easier to write or more controversial (things that one could argue would help his career,) but to say he enjoys the team he covers being a loser is dumb. In fact, if he's as critical during winning campaigns as you maintain, what difference would it make...He'd still write the same article. What Sullivan seems to not like is stupidity...Whether it's talented players doing stupid things, or management making moves that, in his opinion, hurt the team's chances. Obviously, you don't agree with him. Ok, but I do, and I think it's unfair to make assumptions about his wanting a winning football team in Buffalo or not.
Recommended Posts