Jump to content

john wawrow

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

435 Excellent


About john wawrow

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Buffalo, N.Y.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,633 profile views
  1. the fear-mongering by PFT is never-ending. remember the annual, LeSean McCoy is going to get traded/cut posts from previous years. i'd suggest not including a link because it only provides the site credence in clicks. it's barely a tip sheet of a site. Florio has authority of predicting the weather. jw
  2. i’ve ..... decided .............. to try to ......... argue ...... badolbilz .............. styl...e just for ..... kicks. jw
  3. ok. here's how i really can't take you seriously. it's this suggestion that the "bills offense has gone from excellent to gawd-awful under McDermott." you say this with a straight face? the bills, only by virtue of LeSean McCoy, Eric Wood and Richie Incognito -- and a one-dimensional, running quarterback -- ranked 11th and 16th overall in net yards offense under Rex Ryan. but it had very little to do with passing. the bills ranked 27th and 30th behind the tyrod, and that's with a far more talented receiving core than what the team's had under McDermott. oh, we can even go back to the magnificent Orton era, when the Bills finished 18th in yards passing and 26th in total yards. what is this offensive juggernaut that you speak of that preceded McDermott. where were these receivers which during everyone's fantasy draft clamored they wanted to pick in the first round? pray tell, how often bills fans -- not you, of course -- celebrated 100 yard receiving games, 1,200 yard receiving seasons, and Tyrod firmly entrenched in teh 4,000-yard, 35-TD a season club. you bring up Mike Tolbert and Chris Ivory, i'll counter with the unstoppable three-headed monster of Fred Jackson and Anthony Dixon and CJ Spiller in 2014 that inspired fear in every D-line they encountered. that was the year Hogan, who once played lacrosse, essentially clinched his spot on the wall of fame with 41 catches for 426 yards and a whopping total of four tds, or how about we refer to the 2016 season, when Charles Clay led the team with 57 catches. and let's not forget Walt Powell. well, ok, let's. however you want to put it, it's evidently clear how these Bills have certainly regressed. oh, where have you gone Leonard Hankerson? jw
  4. no, i was actually providing informed context behind why the moves were made. you can call them excuses, if you will, but i'm merely citing why they were made as they were being made. some might call them reasons. but if you care to shoot the messenger here, sure, go ahead. they're all my fault jw
  5. hey, bubba. i didn't start this thread. but since it reflects and outlines the views I expressed, i've chosen to take part in it. 1. i thought i personally insulted you at least three times. 2. i also personally insulted one other poster, whose coat-tails you appear to be riding, as you've really offered up little that's original to this discussion. 3. the above is not an ad hominem attack as it pertains directly to the discussion we're having. 4. you're not criticizing an article, but instead a series of tweets that were shared. 5. at least i have a profession to be unprofessional, unlike you it seems. 6. that would be me personally insulting you a fourth time i believe. jw
  6. yup. still questioning your fandom. it’s quite apparent you’re a poseur. jw
  7. son of a fart. i have absolutely no f-in clue who you are, nor do i care as you hide behind your veil of anonymity in being able to call out people and their professions directly. good for you. i'd like to have that advantage. like the way you weave in a narrative there without the benefit of facts, in suggesting you know what i do and how i go about doing it. i give the benefit of the doubt to all people i cover, as it is my job to be impartial. it's only when i gain enough perspective based on my own discussions, my own eyes, and the results put forth before me when i begin gaining a semblance of perspective. you, on the other hand, have elected to place the cart directly before the horse and advance to let's move on with this crew. you're more than free to do that. and yet, don't project your biases on what i do and how i go about doing it. this sycophantic narcissm of placing your values on me just because i posted something positive is your issue, but now you've made it mine by questioning my professionalism. easy for you to attempt to put me on the defensive as i don't know who you are except for some acned-teenager with a keyboard fetish. it's unfortunate that i have to respond like this, but you've brought it on yourself as it's been clear through the little time i've gotten to know you that i've gained a clear sense of perspective of how small-minded you are. jw
  8. good discourse? not sure about that. as all threads eventually unravel, this was expected. i've stated my case. not sure why this dude continued to challenge me as i've said what i've said, and gonna stick by it. the sheer negativity from the poster leads me to question whether he's a fan. thus my question. all that said, this whole conversation's run it's course, so let this be my final response of this thread. jw
  9. i'm not a fan of the team by the mere nature of my job. what's your excuse? jw
  10. ok, folks, you don't need google translator for this. that said, i'm working under the belief that we all understand words, words have accepted definitions, and that we're all on board with that except, of course, with the anarchists. i find nothing wrong with the anarchists in principle, but let's leave them out of this, because then this whole thing that i'm going to write next will go awry. of course, many things that i've already written in this post have gone awry, so who the heck am i kidding. clearly, i'm writing this for an audience of one. and that audience happens to be me. so i'm going to get a kick out of this if nothing else. because, let's face it, how often to i have to post the same words in different posts over and over again, before someone starts mentioning occam's razor. and once we reach the point of someone mentioning occam's razor, and using an example that is far more complex and speculative than occam's razor, then clearly, this is the point where all bet's are off and it's time to start babbling. and i regret that i'm writing fairly quickly here, so those among you who are slow readers might want to take a breath. so, where was i? yes, google translator. sorry, i lied. you'll need google translator because, after all, de hars hpyitparsai and agus tá mé tuirseach de mé féin a athrá fariq kurat alqadam Phyāyām prah̄yạd ngein doy k̄hx h̄ı̂ p̄hū̂ lèn thảngān ngeindeụ̄xn h̄ım̀ der Spieler akzeptierte og þá gerði hann það ekki end of Sutōrī
  11. The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible. This happens more often than we know during every offseason. I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal. He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time. The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter. and then he wasn't. jw you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane. well, we know what assuming leads to ... jw
  12. They didn't hire Beane because they weren't going to fire Whaley until after the draft. They didn't want to risk losing the institutional scouting knowledge he had compiled. 1. that's your opinion. Beane decided to limit himself on how much money to spend and where to spend it last season. 2. You're right. 3. They didn't make him do anything. They offered it up and he accepted. In fact, he was happy about it initially until he wasn't. 4. yes, you've said this, i see. 5. they signed Star because he was one of the few big-name players who was interested in signing with Bills, and Bills felt he would address an important need. this, of course, was in 2018 under Beane. Woods left in 2017 before Beane arrived. this is also an important distinction. 6. sure. of course you conveniently omit the fact that the Bills would've lost Watkins for nothing in free agency the following year, while knowing they weren't going to re-sign him. so, the thought was, why not bring in someone with another year on his contract to see if he might fit. he didn't. shrug. jw i stopped glancing through this when you wrote Incognito "was 36 years old." he'll be 36 this July. if you're going to make a long-winded point, trying getting your facts straight up high. otherwise, i'd like to thank you for sparing me from reading the rest, which i'm sure is error-prone. jw having glanced at your second-to-last paragraph, and seeing the reference to Russ Brandon, who had very little say in hiring McDermott or Beane, i'm sorry i even read any portion of this thread, as i now feel dumber.
  13. Sorry for late response. They initially hoped to keep him, but when it became clear what Woods would command on the market, they knew they were out of the running. jw
  • Create New...