what exactly does chuck pollock think TO is going to do?

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

For the record, 41 years old here, and I think you sound like an idiot with this post, Doc.

 

There is no "realism" in constant negativity. Certainly no more "realism" than exists in constant optimism. The difference is that optimists are a lot more fun to be around.

 

Following sports in general, or one team in particular, is a voluntary activity, delightfully useless and irrelevant to any real world concerns. To choose to turn following a team into an excuse to run around like Eeyore making critical comments is the right of every free human being, but let's not pretend that it is some higher calling. It is more likely a sign of clinical depression...

 

If one wants to be "realistic," there are plenty of actual problems in the world that require solutions. Sports are the toy department of life. Toys exist to bring joy. If being a wet blanket brings you joy, well, you might want to consider re-examining your idea of fun.

 

Go Bills!

 

 

Thanks for the love. And who the f**k are you to tell me, or anyone to go cheer for some other team? It's not about being negative or positive. It's about, reality, shooting straight, being honest, and able to handle the truth.

 

If you take a gander at the fan division on this board, I'll bet you'll find the line at those under 35 and those over 35. The older you are, the more realistic. And... you get into the over 40 crowd...They've been down the current Bills path ad nauseum and see it for what it really is.

 

Obviously, you fit into that 12-35 crowd. You don't know the difference between building a winner and selling tix. They are two different things.

[extrahammer]

For the record, 41 years old here, and I think you sound like an idiot with this post, Doc.

 

There is no "realism" in constant negativity. Certainly no more "realism" than exists in constant optimism. The difference is that optimists are a lot more fun to be around.

 

Following sports in general, or one team in particular, is a voluntary activity, delightfully useless and irrelevant to any real world concerns. To choose to turn following a team into an excuse to run around like Eeyore making critical comments is the right of every free human being, but let's not pretend that it is some higher calling. It is more likely a sign of clinical depression...

 

If one wants to be "realistic," there are plenty of actual problems in the world that require solutions. Sports are the toy department of life. Toys exist to bring joy. If being a wet blanket brings you joy, well, you might want to consider re-examining your idea of fun.

 

Go Bills!

 

Exactly. Let's not go all crazy about this but defnitely hope for the best.

[jester43]

Bingo! And ya know what? We still suck. Bringing in TO was just a ploy to bring in a fresh batch of koolaid drinkers... the 12-35 year old crowd. They think this is a clear signal that the Bills are about winning. Those over that age have already experienced years of taking it up the hershey highway and have had enough. They see they Bills for what they really are... about selling tix and making coin.

i'm with you, but i think this has a chance to work...at least for long enough to make it interesting this fall. we still need a guard, a linebacker, a d.e. and a head coach.

[The Dean]

Thanks for the love. And who the f**k are you to tell me, or anyone to go cheer for some other team? It's not about being negative or positive. It's about, reality, shooting straight, being honest, and able to handle the truth.

 

If you take a gander at the fan division on this board, I'll bet you'll find the line at those under 35 and those over 35. The older you are, the more realistic. And... you get into the over 40 crowd...They've been down the current Bills path ad nauseum and see it for what it really is.

 

Obviously, you fit into that 12-35 crowd. You don't know the difference between building a winner and selling tix. They are two different things.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks marketing didn't play a part in this, is fooling themselves.

 

But, the Bills were looking for a WR in FA. Judging by the guys they brought in, they are looking for a short-term bridge player, as they were all older (and past their prime) players. Had the Bills been thinking long-term, they would have taken a different tack, from the start of FA.

 

So, instead of signing Coles, they got a better WR, for less money. Go ahead, tell me how that's a bad thing?

 

That it helps PR doesn't necessarily make it a bad move.

[jester43]

Who cares? Who the hell is Chuck Pollack beside some small town writer in the middle of nowhere? If you don't like his article, why even make it a thread??

well i did not point out but i will now...i was born in olean and grew up close by, so with regard to it being the middle of nowhere, here is a big f.u. for you. your "middle of nowhere" is where i have roots.

 

i posted it because i found chuck's point of view on this one puzzling. i usually like chuck's column, and i grew up reading it, i just think he's being a little hysterical on this topic. sorry if you don't think it's worth discussing.

 

the guy covers the bills for a living. it's not like i am complaining about college intern's "power ranking" on some online campus newspaper

[Lori]

Really, jes? This is EXACTLY what I expected.

 

And for those who may not be aware, Pollock is also the longtime Bills correspondent for Pro Football Weekly.

[BillsWatch]

I think Chuck Pollock is a very old school writer - he writes his old column not has someone else write it, spell checks it and is usually right on with facts and differentiates it with his opinion but in this case I think he has mixed up his opinion what makes a great team with facts. I agree that TO has been disruptive with teams without that stupid and moronic analogy about throwing a player under a bus but I think it would more important on teams more ego driven. The Bills are the opposite of that and will manage TO different than other teams.

[Lori]

I had Chuck Pollock and Qadry Ismail of ESPN on Bills Fan Radio tonight, Chuck wrote a very anti-T.O. article today and I figured he'd be good to have on and vent. And he did.

By the way, dude, you really should have tossed in a link to that ...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BillsFanRadio...t-Terrell-Owens

 

(Chuck comes on at about the 7:00 mark.)

 

"Even the most optimistic people say, 'He can make them better IF ...' There are a lot of ifs and buts about his presence -- and why wouldn't there be, because of his history? But I will say this, guys. If for some reason he found a way to corral himself for a year, this guy can still play, and if everything else worked out, it would be a tremendous deal. But I've got to say that I think the risks by far outweigh the rewards, as you saw in today's column."

***

"This will be the 37th year I've covered them. I've covered some bad football teams, and some very good ones. Clearly, this team has not had very players in its history -- with the exception of the Super Bowl years -- that has T.O.'s kind of star power.

 

"You know, I would love this to work out. I really would, because it serves me well. If the Bills win, fans are more interested in what I write, they care more about the team, and it works well for everybody. But I can't envision, given his body of work, that he can let himself come to Buffalo and be the second banana to Lee Evans.

 

"I'm very sympathetic to Lee, because he's stuck with a team that really has not done a great deal win-wise. It's a team that really hasn't done a great job of getting him any help, and getting the double-teams off him. And now there's a guy who maybe can do that, but a guy whose ego is so ginormous that it's going to be all about him. In a way, when the Bills try to do something -- in my view -- even when they try to do something right for Lee, it's going to come back and bite them, and the guy who's really going to get the incisors laid into him is Lee Evans. And I feel badly about that."

***

Regarding Trent, he concluded, "I think he's kind of like the fans who want this to work. But there's a part of you that says, 'This might not end well.'"

 

(interview runs approximately 22 minutes)

[AJ1]

By the way, dude, you really should have tossed in a link to that ...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BillsFanRadio...t-Terrell-Owens

 

(Chuck comes on at about the 7:00 mark.)

 

"Even the most optimistic people say, 'He can make them better IF ...' There are a lot of ifs and buts about his presence -- and why wouldn't there be, because of his history? But I will say this, guys. If for some reason he found a way to corral himself for a year, this guy can still play, and if everything else worked out, it would be a tremendous deal. But I've got to say that I think the risks by far outweigh the rewards, as you saw in today's column."

***

"This will be the 37th year I've covered them. I've covered some bad football teams, and some very good ones. Clearly, this team has not had very players in its history -- with the exception of the Super Bowl years -- that has T.O.'s kind of star power.

 

"You know, I would love this to work out. I really would, because it serves me well. If the Bills win, fans are more interested in what I write, they care more about the team, and it works well for everybody. But I can't envision, given his body of work, that he can let himself come to Buffalo and be the second banana to Lee Evans.

 

"I'm very sympathetic to Lee, because he's stuck with a team that really has not done a great deal win-wise. It's a team that really hasn't done a great job of getting him any help, and getting the double-teams off him. And now there's a guy who maybe can do that, but a guy whose ego is so ginormous that it's going to be all about him. In a way, when the Bills try to do something -- in my view -- even when they try to do something right for Lee, it's going to come back and bite them, and the guy who's really going to get the incisors laid into him is Lee Evans. And I feel badly about that."

***

Regarding Trent, he concluded, "I think he's kind of like the fans who want this to work. But there's a part of you that says, 'This might not end well.'"

 

(interview runs approximately 22 minutes)

 

So if I'm Lee, I defer to TO. I don't care that he has to get more passes thrown his way, I'm going to get big yardage while teams try to stop him.

 

Pollock totally misses the point of this move. The only thing the Bills put at risk is $6.5 million.

[Lori]

So if I'm Lee, I defer to TO. I don't care that he has to get more passes thrown his way, I'm going to get big yardage while teams try to stop him.

 

Pollock totally misses the point of this move. The only thing the Bills put at risk is $6.5 million.

And the chemistry inside the locker room. That's Chuck -- during the interview, he said he was "old-fashioned," in that he thinks chemistry is a huge factor. The Steelers weren't the best team in the league this year, but they were playing the best at the end of the season, and he credited that to them playing together as a team instead of a collection of me-first guys. Same with the Giants last year.

 

Sully and the other columnists in favor of the move are saying that good team chemistry hasn't gotten the team anywhere, so the heck with it -- bring in more talent, and if it shakes up the locker room, well, it needed a good rattling anyway.

 

Guess we'll find out which point of view ends up being correct.

[The Dean]

And the chemistry inside the locker room. That's Chuck -- during the interview, he said he was "old-fashioned," in that he thinks chemistry is a huge factor. The Steelers weren't the best team in the league this year, but they were playing the best at the end of the season, and he credited that to them playing together as a team instead of a collection of me-first guys. Same with the Giants last year.

 

Sully and the other columnists in favor of the move are saying that good team chemistry hasn't gotten the team anywhere, so the heck with it -- bring in more talent, and if it shakes up the locker room, well, it needed a good rattling anyway.

 

Guess we'll find out which point of view ends up being correct.

 

 

Again, has anyone clued Chuck into the fact that chemistry hasn't been an issue with Owens, in his first year with a new team?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Thanks for the love. And who the f**k are you to tell me, or anyone to go cheer for some other team? It's not about being negative or positive. It's about, reality, shooting straight, being honest, and able to handle the truth.

 

If you take a gander at the fan division on this board, I'll bet you'll find the line at those under 35 and those over 35. The older you are, the more realistic. And... you get into the over 40 crowd...They've been down the current Bills path ad nauseum and see it for what it really is.

 

Obviously, you fit into that 12-35 crowd. You don't know the difference between building a winner and selling tix. They are two different things.

This argument is ludicrous. Young or old, we've all been sitting here watching this team spin their tires in the mud for the last 10 years. Maybe I didn't see 0 for the 70s, but for a young fan, I've got plenty of experience in being disappointed by this team.

 

Every Bills fan knows what its like to lose, and every Bills fan wants nothing more and nothing less then to see this team win games.

[Lori]

Again, has anyone clued Chuck into the fact that chemistry hasn't been an issue with Owens, in his first year with a new team?

With two teams that had veteran QBs, and had had winning seasons the previous year. Is Trent ready to get into T.O.'s face if he has to?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Thanks for the love. And who the f**k are you to tell me, or anyone to go cheer for some other team? It's not about being negative or positive. It's about, reality, shooting straight, being honest, and able to handle the truth.

 

If you take a gander at the fan division on this board, I'll bet you'll find the line at those under 35 and those over 35. The older you are, the more realistic. And... you get into the over 40 crowd...They've been down the current Bills path ad nauseum and see it for what it really is.

 

Obviously, you fit into that 12-35 crowd. You don't know the difference between building a winner and selling tix. They are two different things.

Hey Doc,

 

49 years old here. Started following the Bills since about 1968. I was a big Dennis Shaw fan...as a kid I didn't really know that he was not deserving of his rookie of the year award.

 

Anyways, I've written here many times that the problem is not Brandon, Jauron, Schonert, Edwards, etc, etc.

 

I always make the point that the problem is Ralph Wilson. As I've chronicled elsewhere, success for this organization is an anomaly, the exception not the rule.

 

In spite of this, I remain optimistic because I guess, I'm as optimistic as a guy my age can be. I actually consider myself a realist but I still get excited about positive developments regarding the Bills. I'm a fan and it's about hope and excitement.

 

Finally, even the blind squirrel gets the acorn occasionally. Billy Bidwell, one of the worst owners in the NFL got to the Super Bowl months ago. The Brown family has gotten the Bengals there twice. The Rosenbloom family, terrible owners if there ever was such a thing have won a Super Bowl.

 

We still have a lousy owner but I see hope for the coming season. More needs to be done but they're closer than they've been for awhile.

[The Dean]

With two teams that had veteran QBs, and had had winning seasons the previous year. Is Trent ready to get into T.O.'s face if he has to?

 

Good question (which I will address), but it misses the point, I think.

 

Did McNabb have to get in TO's face in his first year with Philly? If so, I don't recall it.

 

In Dallas, Romo's first start as an NFL QB was in the 7th game of 2006 (Owen's first season with the team). Romo was in his 3rd year in the NFL and had FAR less experience, than Edwards. Do you recall anytime in 2006 when Romo had to get in Owen's face?

 

At the end of 2006, Romo was seen as a star on the rise. Owens doesn't seem to have screwed up Romo's first year, in any way.

 

THAT is what Pollock is missing. He is looking at the broad strokes, without examining the detail. Arguing that Owens has always caused trouble, a mile down the road, for every team on which he has played is meaningless, when you take into consideration that the Bills only have him for a one-half mile trip.

 

Now, lets get to your question. I don't know if Edwards gets in TO's face, and I don't know that he has to. Leaders, IMO, should operate in a manner that is most effective for them (within boundaries, of course). I don't see Trent as an "in your face" guy, so I'm not sure that would be his tactic. But, the real question is, I think, "can Trent deal with TO, if TO gets out of hand?"

 

I think Trent, and the team as a whole, can deal with TO in their own way. I don't expect the situation to explode, as there aren't a lot of egos in the Bills' locker room. There will likely be less pressure between stars, if you get my drift. And, while the local press can be brutal, a small situation won't get the kind of coverage those same things get in Philly and Dallas...at least not nationally.

 

But, mostly I think, if the Bills are winning, there will be very little trouble, from TO. Again, he has always been a model citizen in his first year, and has also done very well when he has had something to prove. I think TO knows this is a make, or break, year for him.

 

Now, if the Bills falter, if they are losing and TO doesn't seem to be making an impact, then we might see trouble. Of course, if they are losing, and TO is making trouble, I think they should simply cut him. Then, they have lost nothing, except for Ralph's money. There are no long-term repercussions here.

 

Again, I have no problem with Chuck thinking it is bad move, but I do have an issue with him not tackling the "one-year" situation, head on.

[extrahammer]

By the way, dude, you really should have tossed in a link to that ...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BillsFanRadio...t-Terrell-Owens

 

(Chuck comes on at about the 7:00 mark.)

 

"Even the most optimistic people say, 'He can make them better IF ...' There are a lot of ifs and buts about his presence -- and why wouldn't there be, because of his history? But I will say this, guys. If for some reason he found a way to corral himself for a year, this guy can still play, and if everything else worked out, it would be a tremendous deal. But I've got to say that I think the risks by far outweigh the rewards, as you saw in today's column."

***

"This will be the 37th year I've covered them. I've covered some bad football teams, and some very good ones. Clearly, this team has not had very players in its history -- with the exception of the Super Bowl years -- that has T.O.'s kind of star power.

 

"You know, I would love this to work out. I really would, because it serves me well. If the Bills win, fans are more interested in what I write, they care more about the team, and it works well for everybody. But I can't envision, given his body of work, that he can let himself come to Buffalo and be the second banana to Lee Evans.

 

"I'm very sympathetic to Lee, because he's stuck with a team that really has not done a great deal win-wise. It's a team that really hasn't done a great job of getting him any help, and getting the double-teams off him. And now there's a guy who maybe can do that, but a guy whose ego is so ginormous that it's going to be all about him. In a way, when the Bills try to do something -- in my view -- even when they try to do something right for Lee, it's going to come back and bite them, and the guy who's really going to get the incisors laid into him is Lee Evans. And I feel badly about that."

***

Regarding Trent, he concluded, "I think he's kind of like the fans who want this to work. But there's a part of you that says, 'This might not end well.'"

 

(interview runs approximately 22 minutes)

 

 

Sorry Lori. I agree with you though, it'll be interesting to see who's point of view wins.

[BillsWatch]

Now, if the Bills falter, if they are losing and TO doesn't seem to be making an impact, then we might see trouble. Of course, if they are losing, and TO is making trouble, I think they should simply cut him. Then, they have lost nothing, except for Ralph's money. There are no long-term repercussions here.

 

Cut him and let him go try to collect another paycheck? No you sit him on the bench and say when he wants to grow up then he can go on the field and play.

[The Dean]

Cut him and let him go try to collect another paycheck? No you sit him on the bench and say when he wants to grow up then he can go on the field and play.

 

 

If you want...but that might prolong the problem. It isn't about TO, it's about the Bills. If keeping him on the team "as punishment" hurts team chemistry, the solution is simple: cut him. What happens to him afterward is none of the Bills' concern. This isn't the 3rd grade.

[Lori]

Sorry Lori. I agree with you though, it'll be interesting to see who's point of view wins.

Certainly no apology necessary, and I hope you don't mind the excerpting. Heck, I was trying to send you some business.

 

Nice job. Considering that I haven't had a chance to talk to him since this went down, I enjoyed the listen. (Can you tell that his degree is actually in radio/TV?) And as I expected, his tone was more measured on the air. You gave him plenty of time to go into detail about his thought process, something not always allowed by an 817-word column. There, you're going for maximum impact in minimal space -- and the "Worst signing ever" tease above the nameplate on Page 1 certainly did that, even before the reader got to the sports section.

[OCinBuffalo]

HAHAHA!

 

For some reason, your image of TO running around the locker room trying to buttfug people(even that's funny), with that schit eating grin on his face, made me spit out my tea. I don't know Chuck Pollock, and I don't care, especially if his is casting homosexual aspersions on TO, funny as they may be.