Sully tells it like it is.

[spartacus]

I used to play in the same City of Buffalo softball league as Jerry Sullivan. One game he was playing third base and as the base runner approached, Sullivan decoyed an incoming throw from the outfield in order to keep the runner from rounding third and heading for home. Thing is, you don't do crap like that in a slow-pitch softball game. The base runner was a middle aged, slightly overweight guy. If he thinks the throw is coming and decides to slide he could hurt himself. I was coaching third base and told him that he breached protocol by decoying a throw when none was coming. Sullivan said he was just trying to help the team win. To me that's like a base runner taking out the shortstop because he's trying to break up a double play. In slow-pitch softball.

 

I guess you should have paid attention to the 3rd base coach

[TheChimp]

Yeah, you guys have convinced me. Because Sullivan was a dirty softball player in the 80s, he's got to be dead wrong about Jauron's gutless approach to coaching football.

[Thurman#1]

Sully has a big time vendetta for TO, as do many others, big deal. I really don't care about TO's press conferences, but I am concerned with 0 catches! As well as him and LE being targeted so little. Who gives a rats a$$ if he plays nice with the media...

 

 

A vendetta for T.O. Oh, please, that's a joke.

 

Sully wants the guy (and everyone) to answer questions. If that's a vendetta, then yeah, he's got one.

[PDaDdy]

There's no doubt (for me, anyway) that Sully likes attention, and might remind us a little too often about how he's not paid to write puff pieces about the team. However - and I think I'm in the minority here - I don't think any of the questions asked were so unfair or tricky so as to justify the attitude TO pulled off with the reporters. The "affected" celebrity athlete, with dark sunglasses on at the podium who is ... <sigh> ... so misunderstood ... tragically forced to endure eternal torment from the wicked little people ....

 

True, there are few Bills that will give responsive answers to good questions anyway, but it's still fair for reporters covering the team to ask them and it's equally fair to expect a (sincerely) polite response, even if it's not completely responsive - or partially responsive, like in the little bits Evans sometimes lets out.

 

One of the reporters (I think it was Hamilton?) did shoot back with a frustrated, "you don't care what I think" when TO turned around a legitimate question and put it back to the reporter. I thought that was unprofessional, albeit largely true -TO was there to be interviewed, not the reporter.

 

If I missed a question, please add it ... I cut and pasted from a secondary source and did not verify or cite-check it to the original transcript.

 

The guy can be such a talent, and as Bills fans we all want to see him get the ball more, but he's not exactly a guy who requires protection from the vicious, hardhitting (?) Buffalo/Rochester media.

 

Q: What did you think of the offense overall?

Q: Why do you think the offense didn't execute?

Q: On the deep ball at the tunnel end did you pull up on that?

Q: Trent couldn't get the ball downfield and it seemed like everything was short and check downs.

Q: Was it something their defense was doing out there?

Q: Do you like the plays that are called?

Q: Do you feel you and Lee (Evans) are being wasted in this offense?

Q: How about the decisions that are made after the plays are called? The quarterback's decisions after the play is called?

Q: Your frustration level right now?

Q: Any thoughts on the end of your catch streak (185 straight games)?

Q: Did it have any meaning to you at all?

Q: Do you feel bad for the defense?

 

What other players were that set of questions asked of with that delivery and the badgering attitude of the reporters???

[C.Biscuit97]

Sullivan is the voice of the miserable

[Buftex]

I don't think Sullivan is near as bad as some of you make him out to be...read the way columnists cover other local sports teams...I don't always agree with Sullivan, but sometimes I think he is dead on...loved this line from his DJ article yesterday, it sums it up perfectly:

 

"Jauron stands by and lets it happen, willing to think small. He sees a 10-point deficit as something to be protected. The thing about losing respectably, of course, is you're still a loser."

 

I also find it hilarious that the national talking heads are taking the Buffalo news media to task for the TO interview...ESPN has been goading him into to saying things that they can stretch out of proportion for years...

[Speedy G]

like Parrish who will never amount to anything

 

should have got rid of him when they had the chance, after his ST performance against the Saints, he has no trade value

[Sisyphean Bills]

I don't think Sullivan is near as bad as some of you make him out to be...read the way columnists cover other local sports teams...I don't always agree with Sullivan, but sometimes I think he is dead on...loved this line from his DJ article yesterday, it sums it up perfectly:

 

"Jauron stands by and lets it happen, willing to think small. He sees a 10-point deficit as something to be protected. The thing about losing respectably, of course, is you're still a loser."

 

I also find it hilarious that the national talking heads are taking the Buffalo news media to task for the TO interview...ESPN has been goading him into to saying things that they can stretch out of proportion for years...

He'd get ripped on just as much if he wrote nothing but fluff pieces trying to ignore or smokescreen the issues with the team.

 

It might be kind of funny though. Questions for T.O.: "What's your favorite color? What's your favorite food? ..."

[EasternOHBillsFan]

There's no doubt (for me, anyway) that Sully likes attention, and might remind us a little too often about how he's not paid to write puff pieces about the team. However - and I think I'm in the minority here - I don't think any of the questions asked were so unfair or tricky so as to justify the attitude TO pulled off with the reporters. The "affected" celebrity athlete, with dark sunglasses on at the podium who is ... <sigh> ... so misunderstood ... tragically forced to endure eternal torment from the wicked little people ....

 

Whatever- utter garbage. It is extremely obvious that the media is now trying to obtain a highly controversial tantrum from T.O., and I think it is pathetic. The object is to WIN THE GAME, not to throw to T.O. because we paid him in the offseason- if we win with him as a draw on the defense, then we WIN, no matter how little he touches the ball. We lost because we tried to force it to him, not because he didn't touch it enough!!

 

Q: On the deep ball at the tunnel end did you pull up on that?

Q: Trent couldn't get the ball downfield and it seemed like everything was short and check downs.

Q: Do you like the plays that are called?

Q: Do you feel you and Lee (Evans) are being wasted in this offense?

Q: How about the decisions that are made after the plays are called? The quarterback's decisions after the play is called?

 

That first question, like the others I quoted, are horsesh*!. I don't care if they come from Olean or from New York City, they are questions that are deliberately trying to provoke T.O., and it is slimy. I don't care how much money T.O. makes either- I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate questions such as those... you're in the minority on this issue.

[1billsfan]

Anyone ripping Sullivan for that dead on article are just as goofy as the media ripping on TO's post game press conference performance.

 

It's a form of misdirected anger and distraction from the fact that the Bills not only currently have the worst coach in the league, but one of the worst NFL head coaches of all time.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Whatever- utter garbage. It is extremely obvious that the media is now trying to obtain a highly controversial tantrum from T.O., and I think it is pathetic. The object is to WIN THE GAME, not to throw to T.O. because we paid him in the offseason- if we win with him as a draw on the defense, then we WIN, no matter how little he touches the ball. We lost because we tried to force it to him, not because he didn't touch it enough!!

 

That first question, like the others I quoted, are horsesh*!. I don't care if they come from Olean or from New York City, they are questions that are deliberately trying to provoke T.O., and it is slimy. I don't care how much money T.O. makes either- I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate questions such as those... you're in the minority on this issue.

On the other hand, the Bills put T.O. out there after a 0 catch game (the first since he was a rookie, last millenium) to answer questions. The offense sucked the wood off the nuts. Why would you think the media was going to sugarcoat it and ask a bunch of softball questions about the scheme, execution, play-calling, etc.? T.O. had a rough day, everyone on the planet knows his fuse length, and the Bills brass (you know the marketing people that outbid themselves to get him here) trotted him out there to face the media anyway.

 

Not saying the questioner (was it even Sully??) wasn't trying to provoke him; I don't know ... or even care what his inner motives were.

[dave mcbride]

On the other hand, the Bills put T.O. out there after a 0 catch game (the first since he was a rookie, last millenium) to answer questions. The offense sucked the wood off the nuts. Why would you think the media was going to sugarcoat it and ask a bunch of softball questions about the scheme, execution, play-calling, etc.? T.O. had a rough day, everyone on the planet knows his fuse length, and the Bills brass (you know the marketing people that outbid themselves to get him here) trotted him out there to face the media anyway.

 

Not saying the questioner (was it even Sully??) wasn't trying to provoke him; I don't know ... or even care what his inner motives were.

Sully isn't good because he's not inquisitive. He's purely reactive to the local team in front of him. The good columnists (the Will McDonoghs of the world; even TJ Simers back when LA had teams) actually brushed up their columns with, you know, sourcing from folks on other teams' staff. They actually informed while they pontificated. Sullivan has the opportunity to do this, but instead offers nothing more than reasonably articulate rants that are no more informative than any number of posts on this board.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Anyone ripping Sullivan for that dead on article are just as goofy as the media ripping on TO's post game press conference performance.

 

It's a form of misdirected anger and distraction from the fact that the Bills not only currently have the worst coach in the league, but one of the worst NFL head coaches of all time.

 

I can agree with that- very good point!

[Magox]

Sullivan is the voice of the miserable

"Birds of a feather flock together"

 

Negativity is contagious, and his "voice" has helped poison many people in the Buffalo area, of course they would subscribe to his BullSh*t, look at his audience, a downtrodden city battered by persistent economic factors and the easiest thing to do is be negative.

 

No one doubts, at least no one rational disagrees with some of the things that he says, but his tone is a consistent one, and that tone is of a cynical, miserable person who has little more to offer than his contemptuous typical rants.

[mackyoho]

Let's blame the Bills' anemic offense on the media, great idea.

[Ramius]

On the other hand, the Bills put T.O. out there after a 0 catch game (the first since he was a rookie, last millenium) to answer questions. The offense sucked the wood off the nuts. Why would you think the media was going to sugarcoat it and ask a bunch of softball questions about the scheme, execution, play-calling, etc.? T.O. had a rough day, everyone on the planet knows his fuse length, and the Bills brass (you know the marketing people that outbid themselves to get him here) trotted him out there to face the media anyway.

 

Not saying the questioner (was it even Sully??) wasn't trying to provoke him; I don't know ... or even care what his inner motives were.

 

I believe T.O. had to go out and talk with the media. The NFL wasn't too happy when he refused to talk after our first 2 games.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Sully isn't good because he's not inquisitive. He's purely reactive to the local team in front of him. The good columnists (the Will McDonoghs of the world; even TJ Simers back when LA had teams) actually brushed up their columns with, you know, sourcing from folks on other teams' staff. They actually informed while they pontificated. Sullivan has the opportunity to do this, but instead offers nothing more than reasonably articulate rants that are no more informative than any number of posts on this board.

It's the Buffalo News. You're expecting New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or Boston Globe? Really?

[dave mcbride]

It's the Buffalo News. You're expecting New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or Boston Globe? Really?

Yes. Felser did it. That's how he became the AFC editor at the Sporting News for a time in the late 70s/early 80s. Picking up the phone and establishing some contacts elsewhere isn't a big business expense, by the way. There are lots of other examples of columnists in mid-tier cities (KC, Minneapolis, etc) that have done this. Re the NY Times, I actually wouldn't expect it -- as good as that paper is overall, it's sports section is legendarily bad (I should know -- it arrives on my doorstep every morning).

[Sisyphean Bills]

I believe T.O. had to go out and talk with the media. The NFL wasn't too happy when he refused to talk after our first 2 games.

I know what you mean, and yes.

 

First, I doubt T.O. really did not want to come out and talk to the media. He's not one to hide. So, in this singular instance, no, he's not going to hide and I doubt the Bills are going to hide him unilaterally anyway. [Edit: To be more clear, I think he likes the attention and fame, but he is also trying to keep his nose clean in his own way. Whatever he does or doesn't do is a controversy though. So good luck.]

 

My point was about long range planning at any rate. Our team is nominally headed by a marketing guy. He should know who covers this team, what they are like, and how they do their jobs. He also should know that for a team with no other superstars bringing in a superstar like T.O. means that T.O. is going to be in front of that media on a weekly basis. He should know about T.O.'s history with the media. And, he should know all of this and consider all of it before signing T.O. to a contract. Whether he knew or considered any of it, T.O. is here and he will face the media and the media will be peppering him with questions hoping to get a story or drama or both.

 

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me that they consider this desirable. Staging T.O. vs. the media is a great distraction and can deflect attention away from the team in general. It's always easier to pick someone's pocket when their attention is distracted by a dancing bear and an organ grinder...

[Sisyphean Bills]

Yes. Felser did it. That's how he became the AFC editor at the Sporting News for a time in the late 70s/early 80s. Picking up the phone and establishing some contacts elsewhere isn't a big business expense, by the way. There are lots of other examples of columnists in mid-tier cities (KC, Minneapolis, etc) that have done this. Re the NY Times, I actually wouldn't expect it -- as good as that paper is overall, it's sports section is legendarily bad (I should know -- it arrives on my doorstep every morning).

I think you are confusing "can be done" with "will be done". Felser moved on. Sullivan?

 

No problem, btw. I fully support your right to your opinion w.r.t. Sullivan. (and other topics of course)