Delete This Account

chicken.

Hey, i made the practice squad, because of all this. don't know if that's a good thing because I didn't want to lose my amateur status. jw

no, you wouldn't want to admit getting your hands dirty.

we seem to have a different definition of back-sliding, too. jw

So let me get this straight. First you say you didn't "assinate" his character, and then when you're called out on it, you provide a half-a*sed apology and question my "tender sensibilities." At least I'm not the one back-sliding here. Call Sully whatever you want, but don't pretend you didn't do exactly what I called you out on doing when in fact you did. You're not Schopp, by any chance? Because this all reads like something some here seem to suggest he sometimes does. (There ans, I worked Schopp into the post.) jw

My apologies. I forgot to include one of the earlier posts you had written in the thread, in which you referred to Sully as, and I quote, "a wanker" and an, how'd you put it so nicely, "as$hole." (see below). I sit corrected. jw post Apr 13 2009, 05:41 PM Post #53 "As Lori will tell you, it's his job to criticise. But that doesn't preclude him from still being an as$hole who'd rather take the easy, 'drunk on a barstool' invective approach to criticism, rather than the harder 'do my homework and add value' approach, like his predessors at the 'Snooze and CE used to do. He's a Wanker..."

No you were NOT agreeing with me. You were questioning my post in saying: "Your post seems to suggest that good reporters are negative, and that the behavior is justified because the team hasn't won in so long. Comparing a line of work to comments that "might" be made by fans at a bar? Really? So because there are negative fans that exist somewhere around Buffalo, that means that reporters are allowed to fill columns with words that make us readers feel the writer is on the verge of slitting their wrists?" You appear to be reading into things to have them fit your point of view. And you failed to realize that my reference to fans being in a bar was equating that to reporters in a press box making comments, and not what they write. To wit: The anecdote about Chris Watson, that never made it into print (though, perhaps it should have) because it was humorous. And I'm not exactly sure about your sense of humor, because I'm not entirely sure what "positive but edgy" means. As for Schopp, please note that I referenced "writers" in specific, because you had questioned "reporters" being always negative. Schopp is not a reporter. He is a commentator and works in a different medium than I, or Sully. And while Sully's a columnist, he's also a writer ... do I have to keep explaining myself or would you please read what's written, how about we start there, eh? jw

Good reporters are skeptical. Not sure about the wrist-slitting reference. Excited? It's May 5. The season is still four months away. And last year, everyone around here was so excited that they nearly set a record for season-ticket sales. Last October, everyone -- including most reporters -- were enthused about the 5-1 start. And yet, when some in the media began questioning whether the Bills were for real, they were knocked as pessimists. And note that I wrote "enthused" not "excited." I don't get paid to get excited. That's what fans do. I also don't get frustrated whether the team I cover is losing. I don't get paid by the team. I cover the team. It's somewhat disappointing, I'll give you that, but I didn't slap my desk in anger when Losman threw that interception in the end zone against Miami or after that botched field goal attempt late last season. Why would I have reason to be frustrated? My job continues whether the Bills are in or out. And I dare you to pick out one professional writer in this region who has, as you put it, "always come at a sports team from a negative view no matter what the circumstance is." In fact, I double dare you. This selective reasoning is why these arguments -- reporters are always negative -- fails. Respectfully, jw Ooops: Forgot to add "always" into posters quote.

and you'll read every word, too. jw

The obit angle's a good one, too. I like that. I'll stick with T.O. as my number 2, though a case could be made for Kemp, considering all the play he's getting following his passing. And you're right about Cowlings. I was in Vancouver at the time, and I didn't know Cowlings was a former Bill, nor did I care. The Bronco was the centerpiece. jw

Bandit: No problem with sharing your opinion. I wanted to share mine in a clever -- way too clever, probably -- bid to provide perspective on what it's like to be in a press box, because all too often -- rightly and wrongly -- some of us are perceived to be nasty, tempermental, curmudgeons (thanks Lori), who bottom feed for anything negative. That's not always the case, though covering teams that don't win makes it difficult to be positive. Then again, winning teams also require being covered with an eye toward skepticism, because that is the instinct, I think, that makes for a good reporter. And I think that's the instinct that good reporters continue to sharpen when they come off as sounding miserable. With that in mind, a press box is very much like a reporters' clubhouse, a bastion of crusty opinion and one-liners that gives us an opportunity to show how smart we are. And we're really not that very smart, but we're pretty good at pretending. But it makes for certain amusements. I'll share one story: The game after Wade Phillips memorably referred to Chris Watson as a punt-catcher, Watson was back waiting to do his job. The punt sailed past him and rolled down inside the 10, I believe, to which someone in the press box opined that Watson, just might in fact be a "punt watcher." Ho, ho. I'm not sure if that's anything different than some might say to friends while watching the game at a bar, on TV or at the stadium. And I've read enough searing opinions on this board to question whether some here aren't worse -- far worse -- in how their comments go beyond the line of good taste and logic. Here's one from Lurker a while back regarding Sully: "Because, IMO, he'd rather name call and character assinate than do the hard work to put the [insert team's name here] perfomance in a context, or explain why something did or didn't happen. He's the equivalent of a kid sticking his tounge out and saying 'nah, nah da nah nah,' rather than a professional commentator who you look forward to spending time with. ... Lazy is as lazy does..." I guess it didn't dawn on this poster that he just did exactly the same thing as he accused Sully of doing by going after his character -- and quite poorly, I might add, as I'm not entirely sure what 'assinate' is. I'm not here to defend Sully. He can do that far better than I. My point here is that coming off as miserable isn't considered an altogether bad thing in my line of work. And when you've covered the Bills for so long, misery, I guess, just might like company. jw

Having given this a little bit of thought, from my perspective, here then are the top-10 Bills who will make the national wire most every time with a story about them. And yes, I'm humbly changing course and going with O.J. at the top. I base this on name recognition, and whether someone in Alabama or New Mexico or Alaska (pick a state, I'm not deriding people living there, it's just that they're far removed from Buffalo) would be interested in these people. OJ Simpson. Terrell Owens. Doug Flutie. Bruce Smith (he's one up on Kelly because he's got the sack record.) Jim Kelly. Jack Kemp (that's a tough one, as unfortunately he is in the forefront of everyone's mind. but based on fame, he did make headlines on and off the field for more than four decades.) Marv Levy. Scott Norwood. Kevin Everrett (will always be remembered as "that Bills player, who overcame paralysis.") Ralph Wilson. jw

wait until this season's over. t.o. will generate one story a day, starting day 1 of training camp through the start of next free agency. o.j. 11th. jw

t.o. edit: 1-10. everyone else is 11th. trust me. jw

hey, jimmy hates third-person talkers, too. jimmy would like to see that episode. jimmy likes seinfeld. jw

If miserable = funny and snide and amusing, then I'll agree, because I wouldn't ask for a better neighbor. The press box environment might not be for everyone, evidently, because it's filled with a bunch of people who cover sports for a living wishing they could kick back and have a beer or 10 while watching a game, and yet knowing that they wouldn't trade their left nugget (apologies to the female persuasion) to be doing anything else. That is, of course, minus the prerequisite poms poms some might think we need to pack with our gear. And if that makes me a cranky old coot, too, then let that be the perception, though I'd hate to ruin your experience on this board after all that's happened already. (disdainful sigh) jw

Thanks, folks. Much appreciated. Out of hard liquor, so have cracked open some red wine. It's a nice change of pace for an ol' fogey like me. Just don't plan to make it a habit -- the wine, that is, though not bad in a late pinch. jw Oh, and Lori, about those sources ...

Whether it's wild or unsubstantiated speculation or hateful remarks as noted in the original post, the value of this poster has proven negligible except for feeding an apparent insecure and narcissistic ego devoid of shame, logic or lucidity. I'd rather not remark on many of these inane - drunken? - babblings, but as a member of this board, it would be wrong to stay silent because it could be interpreted that I agree with such ugly comments included in the original post. For the record, I do not. That the OP fails to retract his/her initial comments seems to suggest that he/she finds nothing wrong with making such remarks while vaulting the line of good taste and reason. jw edit in green, clarifies to note "original post."

terribly bad taste. you should be ashamed. jw

low grade because it wasn't the qb your car-driving friends had suggested? jw

The Bills had pegged Hangartner as their center well before free agency began, and why they were quick to go after him. Am told, very unlikely that will change even with the players Bills added in draft. jw

sources tell me that you are correct. jw

i guaranteed Bills management would be pleased with their selections. bingo! jw

pretty sure it was Phil Hansen, 1991-01. jw

laugh out freakin' loud.