TimGraham
-
Posts
872 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TimGraham
-
-
That's the problem. It asks if we approve of the job Lovie Smith has done coaching the Bears. We aren't able to vote for him.
A ha ... I'll alert the authorities.
-
Either way, he's still not on the list.
EDIT: I stand by what I said...and approve of the job he is doing.
He is on the list. He's on the pull-down menu.
The reason you don't see his picture is because he hasn't received enough votes to register this week. And he's the only one of the 32 who doesn't have enough votes yet.
-
Uh, guys ... That's a fan approval poll. It's not power rankings.
-
He shoulda got in during preseason when the number was 7.5. That was like falling off a log playing the over on that.
I still don't trust him. Bocce, La Nova, or Mister Pizza?
Duff's all the way. It's not about the size of the wing, but the flavor of the sauce. I go through a form of withdrawal about two days after I eat Duff's.
Somebody else mentioned Gabriel's Gate. Those are in my top five.
Also, Caputi's in Tonawanda, but make sure you order them extra saucy just in case because sometimes they skimp.
-
No invitation necessary (although I certainly would have offered one); that was entirely Tim's doing. When I PMed him Saturday evening to let him know about the thread on his Crowell story, he asked where we'd be at before the game and said he'd love to stop by.
Thanks for taking the time to do that, Tim, and it was a pleasure to meet you. 'S funny -- when the Bills looked like they were dead in the water and Miami was rolling in Foxborough, I wondered if you were having second thoughts about switching games. Glad they gave you a great story (and us an even better win) after all.
I have to admit I'm still having second thoughts. That game at New England was epic for a lot of reasons, and I do cover the whole division. That the Bills actually won at least justified my trip. Had the Bills lost, ESPN would have been very disppointed it took me off that game.
I had a great time before the game. As I mentioned to Lori, I got itchy hanging around there. I would have preferred that setting to the press box. Going inside to work is the decision I really second-guessed yesterday.
-
No, it wasn't... we led 7-6 Timmah!
I fixed it. Sorry about that.
-
This is from the San Francisco Chronicle about the Raiders beating out the Panthers to sign recently released WR Ashley Lelie:
"The Panthers, however, were more inclined to sit tight before making a contract offer to Lelie, even at the six-year veteran minimum of $605,000.
"That's because they would have avoided making that $605,000 guaranteed by waiting until the 1 p.m. PDT Saturday deadline to add Lelie to the opening-day roster. As a vested veteran with four or more years in the NFL, Lelie's salary for 2008 becomes guaranteed at that point. Vested veterans who are not on the roster for an NFL team's opening game do not have their salaries guaranteed."
-
I'll check into that. CBA legalese isn't my strong suit, and I very well could be wrong. But two NFL personnel men from different teams mentioned to me that if Crowell really wanted to screw the Bills he would have played in Week 1.
The CBA is a little too heavy for me at 2 a.m., but here is a passage from the National Football Post (a great site, by the way), in which Andrew Brandt is discussing John Lynch's situation after getting cut by the Patriots ...
"Due to the vested veteran rules requiring full payment of salary for veterans on the 53-man roster opening day, most of these names will not be signed this week."
Brandt is a former player agent and Packers VP who handled all of their player contracts and managed their salary cap from 1999-2007.
-
But, your article, and your answers, make me believe this wasn't a DJ decision, at all.
Thanks, again.
I don't think it was either.
-
It was stated earlier in this thread that the guarantee kicked in the Tuesday prior to the Seahawks game. If this in error then so is my take. This is a critical fact in assessing intent.
I'll check into that. CBA legalese isn't my strong suit, and I very well could be wrong. But two NFL personnel men from different teams mentioned to me that if Crowell really wanted to screw the Bills he would have played in Week 1.
-
Excellent points. But, last year's experience just might be the key to why DJ didn't want to go through an unknown number of games with a short roster. Last year, injuries decimated the team, and there were games where Ryan Neil had to play DE, and guys like Leon Joe were being being activated. In any given week, there were probably a couple of guys who were so had been with the team for such a short time, that they were more of a detriment than any real help. If you have two injuries at a position, and can't really use their replacements, then the remaining guys get no rest...can lead to more injuries...and certainly does the team no good. This team might not need a 53rd man, but I'm guessing it needs a 47th.
So, if they were uncertain on how long it would be before Peters would be activated, that would be two positions they would be keeping open "indefinitely". A few injuries in game #1, and then for game #2 in Jacksonville, in the heat, you have limited number of bodies to shuffle, and position players have to start playing special teams, in addition to their regular duties. Maybe they start 0-2 (or 1-1), instead of 2-0. Because Blake Costanzo is with the team from the beginning, he is practicing with the team, keeping up with the playbook and such and can actually be put into a game, if necessary.
Far fetched? Maybe, but based on last season, maybe not so much. I think DJ believes this team has a chance and doesn't want to go for several weeks minus two roster spots...just in case. I could add, he might feel extra strong about this if he isn't getting any straight answers about Crowell's recovery time.
Anyway, while we have your attention. Can you answer any of these questions? I realize some of them you may not be at liberty to fully answer.
Did the Bills know that Crowell would likely be ready in 5 weeks, as suggested in the article? (Is this what his agent claims, or did you hear this from the Bills, or were you just estimating on your own?)
Was Crowell advised by the Bills doc to get the arthroscopic surgery? Did the Bills have ANY idea that he might require surgery before this announcement?
Did Crowell know he might need surgery before deciding right before the season started? Could he have had this in the offseason (in other words is this from last season)?
I have more, but that's good for now. Thanks for coming by. I really have been enjoying your coverage and think it has been quite good, overall.
One more thing. I love that Blake Constanzo's last name is "Costanzo". But, "Blake"? Not so much.
I can't disclose everything I know or else I would have put it in the story. But I will say that I spoke to more than just Crowell's agent for the story. I spoke with some Bills employees, too.
The original prognosis was four to six weeks. The Bills have a bye in Week 6, so that means 11 games would be left if the surgery went the duration of the estimate. Crowell's agent told me their information was that it was a five-week procedure but that some players have come back as quickly as two weeks. Dick Jauron was quoted at the time that eight weeks would have been a worst-case scenario.
From the Buffalo News: Asked if the injury could have stretched into the eight-week range, Jauron said, "Yeah absolutely, bad-case (scenario). And that's where we are. We're in a situation at this time 72 hours prior to game time that we needed a spot. So we took the spot."
But there are ways to find a roster spot. Just for sake of discussion, would you feel better about your team knowing you have Gibran Hamdan for a full season or that Angelo Crowel is coming back in Week 6? Or even Week 8?
There was talk of having the surgery, but the decision was made to try an experimental gel injection treatment to see if that would help (it's uncertain if Crowell made this decision or the Bills did). From what I understand, this method takes a few days to tell how it will work. Once it was determined his knee wasn't responding, then he made the decision to have surgery.
What I found strange was that he didn't appear on the injury report for Week 1. The Bills did know he was hurt. I haven't been able to get a good answer as to why he wasn't on the list.
-
If it was just a matter of taking care of his body, then Crow would have had surgery early in the off-season. That he waited till the guarantee kicked in was all about him, and nothing about the team. Spin as you like, but if this guy was on my payroll and pulled that, I would IR him and do it with pleasure.
And then bring him back later "to get value"? Having him play the team and management like that meant that he had more value on IR (as an example) and in FA then he would being carried on the active roster. Rather do without then have the poster boy for a new technique in blackmail.
Like any 'old-timer' I have known the Bills/Ralph to be pretty cheap. (Actually, VERY cheap.) But I do not recall them actively screwing players over like that. Granted there are things we do not/will not know about what happened, but from appearances the Bills did the right thing - in spades.
Crowell didn't wait until the guarantee kicked in. The guarantee kicks in after the first regular-season game.
If he wanted to get one over on the Bills, then he would have played through the injury in Week 1 and then had the surgery. Like Merriman did.
-
Wasn't this before Peters reported? If so, it would be harder to cut Murphy when he is a tackle.
Peters told the Bills he was reporting the day they signed Costanzo. Again, even more reason to wait. In this case, even a day would have been beneficial. And if not Murphy, then Gibran Hamdan or Xavier Omon or ... Crowell for half a season is more valuable than a full year from a few of the guys on the 53-man roster. Again, they could have used the Ryan Denney's roster spot last year but made do.
-
I was less than impressed with the "journalism" in that article. Graham leaps to some conclusions that don't have any factual support, and avoids mentioning some other key issues.
Did Peters' holdout affect this decision by the Bills? Yes, but not in the way that he implies. They didn't put Crowell on IR because they were "fuming" about Peters. They did it because they were thin on roster spots. Crowell was essentially the victim of a numbers game. Just take a close look at the actives/inactives for the first two games. You honestly believe it wouldn't have hurt the Bills to carry Crowell as an inactive and have one player who wound up participating in the game inactive? Jauron when asked said basically what I'm saying here. They put Crowell on IR because they needed the roster spot for a backup LB who plays ST.
Then you cut Matt Murphy and add Blake Costanzo until you see how Crowell responds from surgery.
-
Too true!
Heck, I do not begrudge an agent his right to spin things any way that helps his client, and I am no orthopaedist, so maybe Crowell would have been good as new in four weeks. But Graham and France are not doctors either, and we know that Crowell had several consultations once he decided to have surgery, resulting in this decision to go for the works. How can anyone write a story on this topic and not at least consider that the works is the surgery that Crowell would have ended up needing all along? It is that particular assumption, that it was obviously going to be 4-5 weeks and, paraphrasing Graham, the Bills would have had 11 weeks of their leading tackler if they had not inexplicably gotten all mean and petty, that continues to bug me—not because I believe that the Bills front office is perfect in this, but because questions of surgery, especially knee surgery, are often too complex to be jammed into either/or categories.
I just wanted to thank everybody for reading my work and then taking the time to digest it and comment. I really appreciate the feedback.
The point of my story wasn't the type of surgery Crowell had. The issue is that they put him on IR immediately. They could have waited to see how his knee responded from surgery. A week? Two weeks? Three weeks? Then they would be able to make an educated decisions to see how fast he can come back. If it's determined he won't be useful after he's had the surgery, THEN they could put him on IR. Did they need Blake Costanzo that badly?
You're absolutely right that this is not an either-or scenario, which is all the more reason to make an educated decision and not one in the eat of the moment, the very definition of a knee-jerk reaction. The prudent thing would have been to wait just a little while to see how Crowell's knee responded.
As mentioned in the story, they went seven weeks last year with Ryan Denney eating a roster spot, and that defense was decimated by injuries. This team doesn't need a 53rd man that badly.
-
Graham,
In your opinion, who are the top four (4) heavy weight boxers right now?
1.
2.
3.
4.
I don't follow boxing nearly as much as I used to. Once the Sabres took ahold of WNY and got in the habit of playing well into spring, I didn't have time to cover much else. Likewise, when I began covering the NFL, I had even less time to devote to boxing. But here are the rankings from Dan Rafael, the best and most objective boxing writer in the business (and I would have said that before I started working for ESPN.com; Dan's rankings have been the standard since he was at USA Today).
-
It's been a long day with all the roster cuts and a few other developments going. I just got home a little bit ago and had a chance to sit down to read what everybody had to say. My sincerest thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts. This is an especially interesting discussion for me because it ties together the basis of my career: sports and journalism, not just one or the other. Seeing what everybody things on this specific issue is very enlightening for me.
There are a ton of comments on here I'd like to address, but rather than sort through each post and pull out a sentence here or there (I'd probably screw up the quote function anyway) please allow me to make some general responses.
1) I didn't start this thread so everybody can compare the reporters. I'm not saying you don't have the right; you certainly do. But coverage is determined more by factors outside a reporter's control. Money dedicated to the beat, management decisions on staffing, philosophies on how to implement the Web ... reporters have essentially no say in that sort of thing. What compelled me to start this thread was a scarcity of stories from Indianapolis. Six or seven years ago, the Buffalo News (two reporters), D&C (two reporters), Niagara Gazette (one reporter) and Olean Times Herald (one reporter) would have been in that pressbox. On Sunday, as far as I can tell by the stories I saw on-line, one reporter was there. Again, that reflects on the papers, not the reporters. I know all of these guys, and they work their butts off. They have integrity. Even the ones you don't agree with are good people who I not only admire but measure myself against every day because they are good at what they do.
2) A few people mentioned the loss of Empire Sports Network as a reason for the dropoff. That might be the case to a certain extent. But -- and I'm only speaking from my experience as the Sabres writer at the Buffalo News here -- what Empire or WGR did never once had any bearing on how the Buffalo News decided to cover something. The fact the Buffalo is a one-newspaper town absolutely impacts the decisions. In a highly competitive market like South Florida, I have seen it first-hand. The papers down here cover their teams like gangbusters out of fear the other paper might do it better. So everybody loads up to keep the fight close. That is great for the reader.
3) I'm not going to get into the tired and misguided debate the Buffalo News has an agenda. I worked there for eight years. It's simply not true. The Buffalo News doesn't pay me anymore, so I have no reason to lie to you. There is no conspiracy to cover only one side of any story.
4) Lori has some very astute observations of the newspaper business. Everything she said is absolutely fair and true. No need for me to add anything there. The most attractive part about being offered a job at ESPN.com was that it's not a newspaper. There's an obvious future there.
5) I understand where people come from when they say there's no reason to click on a newspaper's site because you can get all of your news here. Believe me, I come to TBD three or four times a day to check the links and forums. But if not for original stories by credentialed reporters, what would you talk about? Would you just believe what Joe in Hamburg had to say about how great Leodis McKelvin looked at training camp, or would you rather read a story from someone who spoke to McKelvin and Dick Jauron? These forums are awesome, but the information still has to be generated by people with access.
6) BuffaloBud asked if the News has ever had three reporters covering the Bills full-time ... Not as far as I know. They didn't have two reporters covering the Sabres full-time until last season -- after I left.
7) A few have asked me to elaborate on what I meant when I said the NFL takes notice of how local media covers its teams. While I don't think they keep a running scorecard, I'm sure they notice the extremes. For example, I'm sure they noted how the New York press covered Brett Favre (many might assume the Jets always get covered heavily, but that's not true because the Giants are the darlings; I was at their camp before the Favre trade and there was only one reporter from each paper, with the New York Times not covering at all) and they note when there's a glaring lack of coverage.
8) TimAnderson: "But I have noticed in reading your blog that you consistently push the idea of the Bills moving. I don't feel like you have any belief the Bills will remain in Buffalo. And I guess that's fine, it's a personal opinion you've developed. I don't think you've been fair - I feel like other AFC East fans reading the blog would get the impression that it's hopeless - but that is my opinion.
"My question is, are you thinking in the back of your mind that the Bills moving to Toronto is something that will help you professionally? I don't think you would admit it, but I get the impression based on your blogs that it might be something you'd prefer. I'm sure you have some allegiances here to Buffalo, but I am just telling you how I have perceived some of the blogs."
I don't think I'm constantly pushing the idea of the Bills moving. I just recognize it as the biggest single storyline regarding the team and its fans. I would've loved for the Cleveland Plain Dealer to explore Art Modell's dissatisfaction more before the Browns moved. It was mostly ignored. I think it's a mistake not to write about this as much as possible.
I'm not sure why you would think the Bills moving to Toronto would help me professionally. I'll have a job at ESPN whether the Bills stay, fold, move to Toronto or settle in Timbuktu. But it sure would be a hassle when it comes to international travel if they did move to Toronto ... and I wouldn't get free trips to see my family in Buffalo anymore ... and it would totally negate any chance of me moving back to WNY as I'd like to ... and it would rip the hearts out of my friends' chests. So your perception couldn't be more off. If I wanted to be in Toronto, I would have kept covering the NHL.
9) Somebody mentioned night games not getting coverage because of printing deadlines. About 90 Sabres games (counting playoffs) happen at night every season, and the deadlines are the same. Two stories on a Sabres game night is the norm. It can be done if papers would bother to staff the games properly, or in some cases, staff them at all. The only situation I can see where a newspaper might as well not even bother is an Eastern Time Zone publication at a major boxing match out West.
10) Thank you again for the discussion. I'll be around if you want to keep chatting.
-
I plan on hanging around the message boards. I might lurk more than I post, but I've been checking in about twice a day for the past couple weeks to see what everybody's talking about.
SilverNRed, you're right that I probably should've just ignored the comments. The person called "msjohns" deleted his first post to me, which was "Why don't you go vote for Bush you looser." That should've told me all I needed to know right there.
Thanks for the input so far. I look forward to reading more of your opinions on this.
-
And to make one thing clear ... my point in all this is not about the Bills and their viability.
My point is that your local newspapers are giving you less and less as time goes on and unless you demand more they'll continue to cut back.
-
Hey Tim-
To be fair, you did throw in a jab about the Toronto media in there, and most bills fans are extremely paranoid about the potential of the bills moving/not happy about the bills playing in Toronto/not happy about any media outlet questioning the long term viability of a football team in buffalo, so any small mention of it is going to make people a little cranky.
Also, I think the media coverage may have had a slight lull surrounding this game because Studwards didn't play. He's the big question mark of the season, and I would have been much more into what happened in the game if he played.
Don't worry about a few nasty comments from a couple cranky Bills fans though. You'll have that; see: The Stadium Wall.
I think people need to realize the NFL looks at this stuff. Media coverage will play a role in whether the NFL stands up for a market. Do you think they would rather be covered full-time by 10 newspaper reporters in Toronto or what has become three (Mark Gaughan/Allen Wilson/Sal Maiorana) in WNY? While the WNY media is scaling back, the Toronto papers are taking reporters off other beats and putting them on the NFL full-time to get ready.
And that's not intended as a shot. It's happening.
-
Hello, everybody. Tim Graham from ESPN.com here. I hope you don't view this as self promotion by posting a link to one of my blogs, but the comment section has totally floored me and I'd like your opinion.
When I covered the Sabres I became a member of the SabresFans message boards and got quite familiar with the general displeasure diehards have when it comes to local media coverage of the Bills and Sabres. And I don't disagree in general (although I did find the Buffalo News bashing sometimes unfair because it's the only outlet that spends money to cover every game home and road).
So I was troubled that when I made my usual rounds of newspaper sites for my daily AFC East roundup, the WNY papers had a grand total of one story from Indianapolis on the game. It was a comprehensive story by Mark Gaughan, but as somebody who follows NFL coverage at dozens upon dozens of newspaper sites, one story was shocking to me. This is, after all, the NFL. And coverage from local media plays a role in how the league views a market.
I also have to say that there were zero blogs on the game as of 11 a.m. this morning. The Rochester D&C used an Associated Press report, which remains the lead story on the D&C site as I write this early Tuesday.
I must point out this is not a reflection of the reporters, who are disgusted at the constant layoffs and belt-tightening, particularly with travel. They want to be at the games and reporting the news for their readers. They take immense pride in their jobs. It's more a testament to the sad state of the newspaper industry and mismangement. The Buffalo News just offered 108 buyouts. The Palm Beach Post, where I most recently worked before joining ESPN.com, cut 135 of 299 editorial jobs a couple weeks ago.
The way I view it, the reader is getting screwed.
So I made a comment on my AFC East roundup today that it was disconcerting to see such a lack of coverage on the most important preseason game of the year (and the scariest injury of preseason).
And the response pretty much was to go screw myself.
Please tell me I haven't totally misread Buffalo after spending eight years there. You really do want more coverage, right?
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-2-133....html?post=true
-
Hello, everybody. Just wanted to let you know I have updated the blog post that started this thread. I've added Russ Brandon's quotes from the Sirius interview. Nothing earth shattering, but a reiteration of the team's stance ...
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-2-98/...ng-a-myth-.html
-
What? Not a single mention of this site, even though (judging by the names I recognize) at least half the questions he answered came from here? Gonna have to talk to that guy.
I know Lori was having a little fun with me, but I do need to thank everybody on the site for sending in their questions. I got flooded with Bills talk last week, and it was refreshing. It was an enjoyable mailbag for me.
My job at ESPN is to cover the AFC East, not just the Patriots or Brett Favre. So as far as I'm concerned the Bills are one quarter (maybe more than one quarter) of my focus -- no less important than the media darlings. I'm proud of my Buffalo connections and all the friendships I've made with fans over the years. I intend to keep writing about the Bills as much as I can. I hope everybody keeps reading.
I've also signed up for an account here to give us one more way to communicate. I'll be stopping in quite a bit and look forward to getting more involved with the discussions.
ESPN respects the Bills? Nope
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
They're on it in Bristol. Should be corrected any moment.