[Nickname for Spiller]

Spillsie... thought I was in the Aud Club on SabreSpace.

[Sanchez is so bad]

But it's implicit that you're saying he should be considered just as good, if not better, because his stats were just as good or not better on a much crappier team. I'm saying that's nonsense, and those stats are meaningless and Sanchez is not only far and away better but IMO it's not even open for debate. And Sanchez hasn't even played very well. In fact, a lot of times (and as evidenced by some of your stats), he's sucked.

 

I also take umbrage (because it's one of my favorite things to take) with the idea that Trent has played so well before, or that he was gushed over by the media for two seasons. he was (wrongfully) gushed over by a select few members of the media, and some fans.

 

Actually, I'm not a huge TE supporter. I had to cut my last post short. I was also not thumping my chest about his stats saying they were good. But stats are stats, and they are better than Sanchez's from last year (as are TE's stats from LAST season in a MUCH worse situation). I don't know if TE will regain his confidence or not. RIGHT NOW, his head is his biggest problem. But, he started as a rookie and didn't look out of place in the league on a bad team. He looked like he could manage a game. I would argue based on Sanchez's play last season that the same cannot be said of him. In fact, I would argue that if Sanchez had been put in TE's situation, he would have been written off as a bust by now as well.

 

As I re-read your post, I gotta say "What?". So despite the fact that TE's stats were better in his rookie season on a worse team, and by your own admission Sanchez sucked most of last season on a better team, Sanchez is the better QB based on... ? I guess that would have to be the ever elusive potential, cuz it can't be based on production. He may ultimately turn out better, but as of right now you can justifiably make that argument.

[Sanchez is so bad]

Sanchez is head and shoulders better than any of the half-talents we have under center. We can only dream that our QBs were "so bad". LOL.

 

 

Of the approximately 96 owners, GMs and head coaches in the NFL, I would bet you $1000 that not a single one of the 96 would choose Trent Edwards over Mark Sanchez as of today (not counting salary, just as a player). It's possible, I guess, that there is some perverted bastard son of Jerry Glanville out there who may choose Trent, but I doubt it.

 

My original post was in reference to his rookie and second season, and I was trying to make the point that Sanchez did less last year with more around him in HIS rookie season. In 10 games TE was 151 of 269 for a 56.1% completion percentage for 1630 yards, 6.1 yards per completion, 7 TDs, 8 INTs for a 70.4 rating overall in 10 games. Sanchez last year with the leagues best running game and a better than average O-line was 196/364 for 53.8% completion percentage, 6.7 yards per completion, and 12 TDs with 20 INTs for a 63 rating overall in 18 games.

 

In his second season TE was 245/374, 65.5%, 2699 yards, 11 TD, 10 INTs for an 85.4 rating overall. He was being gushed over by the media for much of the first two seasons. He put up those numbers with the Bills, who didn't have the first overall rushing attack or a comparable O-line.

[Sanchez is so bad]

Actually, it's called the "douche" factor. Jeff George, Jay Cutler (and he has a long way to catch those guys), and JP Losman had it. Considering he had the #1 defense and #1 running game, Sanchez might have had the worst season of any QB ever.

 

Sure he can improve but I've seen nothing but a lot of talk.

 

It kills me when people crucify TE, who had an undoubtedly better rookie season (first 16 games he started, actually) in much worse circumstances, and yet they want to bring in someone who has shown less in more favorable circumstances to take his place. Rookie TE on last year's Jets would have flourished based on what he did here when Losman went down.

[Sanchez is so bad]

All I can say is I wish he was on our team with Coach Gailey at the helm to develop him.

 

That's called the "it" factor...Haven't seen anyone have that swagger since Jimbo...

 

The "it" factor has become nothing more than a popular, lazy way of saying you have a gut feeling about someone with absolutely no tangible evidence to back it up, otherwise you'd be rattling off his tangibles, of which Sanchez has thus far shown none in the NFL. By your definition Ryan Leaf, Billy Jo Hobert, Todd Marinovich, etc also possessed the "it" factor... long on bravado, short on results. Kelly would have been the same player even without the mouth because he had the undeniable talent and drive to back it up. And don't tell me about the playoffs last year... a chimp could have handed the ball off with similar results... actually, likely with fewer picks, so possibly with better results.

[In your opinion...]

Does Green Bay's absolute manhandling of the Colts diminish the significance of our victory last week? If so, how? If not, why not?

 

No. It's preseason... by definition there is no significance to the victory last week, as the games don't count... as evidenced by the team's continued 0-0 record in games of significance for the 2010 season. You can't diminish something that doesn't exist.

[Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.]

Well said. It's tough to argue with anything you've written.

 

As for Schopp, Jerry comes off as the more likable of the two when they're both on the radio together.

 

The thing is, Schopp has been an evolutionary process. He's always tried to come off as erudite, and at the beginning of his radio days in Buffalo he was a bit different and out of place with regard to the topics he covered, but not mean spirited. He's definitely evolved to a demeaning joke that is contemptuous of the majority of his audience. I haven't heard him in years, but it sounds like that trend has continued in earnest.

 

I feel like Sullivan has always written from a place of smugness and contempt, even during the '90s. I think that's what makes him so intolerable to me now... I almost feel like he is reveling in this decade. I would draw the analogy of late night television hosts and how much they loved having "W" in office because it was good for ratings, despite his effect on the nation as a whole. If the team turns things around, how is he going to point out obvious flaws so he can pound his chest and tell us how smart he is. His style is not the result of covering this long stretch of futility, rather the long stretch of futility is tailor made for this bell cryor of misery.

[Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.]

So, in other words, you don't like his delivery. He may be right, you just don't like his delivery? That's understandable, but in that case he's right, that is your problem. You don't have to read it. And those of you who say you don't read it, are full of ****. Because you still do.

 

The Bills have been a bad team. It's obvious to anyone who's watched them. It's not hard to be right when that's all you say. If you go out of your way to say it in the most abrasive way possible without adding anything of substance to it, all you are is abrasive and annoying. Despite your assertion of his wide following, he appeals to a very limited number of people. For the record, as soon as I realize I'm reading one of his columns (I tend to click a link and start to read without looking at the byline), I stop. He has never been worth the time, and you can spot his shotty work before you finish the first paragraph. I can tell by the first few sentences, and by the majority of the posts, that nothing has changed.

 

And the only reason he rubs your face in it, is because there are homers that are so offended by his opinion of this garbage team, that they come at him just as hard as he goes after the Bills. The only problem there is that, Sullivan has too much ammo with the Bills being as inept as they are. So, right now, you can't win against him.

 

The only reason he rubs your face in it is because that's who he is. He likes to hear himself talk or see his useless opinion in print, and he amuses himself with his utter lack of tact or respect. In his world the loudest voice is obviously right.

 

As far as him resorting to petulant name calling, or adolescent tactics, I'm guessing that's on WGR. The same WGR that seemingly everyone here hates, yet everyone listens to. I personally don't think JS resorts to anything worse than any other radio talk show host does on that network. As a matter of fact, the idiot on WGR that doesn't like football, is by far the biggest idiot on that network. However, Sullivan usually takes on homers that are easy pickings for him. Because 90% of Bills nation agrees with what Sullivan says, and he has all kinds of ammo and examples of Bills ineptness to ward off anyone who challenges his opinions.

 

I hardly think 90% of Bills fans have ever made their voices heard. The ones you hear on the radio are the vocal few, because most don't call radio shows. One might refer to it as a "population bias."

 

However, if you want to challenge his delivery, that seems fair, but quite frankly, is boring, and no one cares that some people don't like his tone.

 

Looking through this thread, while some may defend his right to be an ass, and some may argue over whether he is a journalist or columnist and whether he is obligated to supply fact or opinion, the majority appears to agree he is a hack at best. I would guess this is close to reality outside of this thread as well.

 

If the Bills show any kind of light at the end of the tunnel, I would bet my ass JS praises it. But give me one example of light that has happened in the last few years. There really aren't any.

 

He may begrudgingly acknowledge success, but I guarantee there would be negativity bracketing any words of recognition in some form or another.

 

I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing. My responses are the bold ones.

[Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.]

Was he in New England before coming to Buffalo? I thought I heard something about him covering Boston or something, before Buffalo. Is that true? And if so, when did he arrive in Buffalo? Anyone know?

 

I dunno, Jerry. Says here you got to town in 1989. http://corp.buffalonews.com/services/newsroom/sports.asp Is it odd referring to yourself in the third person?

[Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.]

I can forgive Howard Simon, Allen Wilson, and other credible personalities for their exasperation and showing some of the stress cracks of reporting on this team for the last 10 years. Sullivan using this as an excuse doesn't explain the fact that his schtick was the same prior to the last decade (I haven't lived in Buffalo in a while, and I despised his "work" well before I left). Sully is misery, and he loves company. Whether his column is fact based or pure opinion, it's never what he says, it's how he says it. He doesn't just tell you the **** smells, he wants to rub it on your face and put it in your mouth to try to prove the obvious. And when you tell him it's revolting, he tells you it's your fault. He dismisses people with valid points, usually by resorting to petulant name calling or other adolescent tactics, and the whole time he give the impression that he's his own biggest fan and he's certain he's the smartest guy in the room. I can't say I blame OBD for not granting him access... he come's off as the guy you'd invite into the house only to have him steal your silverware and brag about it to his buddies. Referring to him as average is being kind.

[Chan's relationship with Trent]

There is no doubt that Chan Gailey is a major upgrade from DJ. That isn't the main problem with the Bills. The central issue with the Bills isn't the level of coaching as much as the lack of talent on the roster, especially compared to the other teams in our division.

 

You stated the Bills are a work in progress. Every team is a work in progress. If the Bills go on to an 8-8 record I will be very much pleasantly and stunningly surprised. Professional footall is a brutal sport where as the season advances it becomes an issue of attrition. When you are short on talent and depth to begin with the grinding season will place more challenges, not less.

 

My time frame is different from your shorter time frame. In my view, it is going to be another few years, at least, before this team can be a serious team. I recognize that and I'm fine with that schedule. What this franchise needs more than anything else is to start making sound decisions on a daily basis and in the long run things will work out.

 

A lot of the players who will make the roster this year will be gone next year. That is a step in the right direction. There comes a point where instead of trying to make do with your draft mistakes you need to replace those mistakes with better players who are also a better fit for what you are trying to do.

 

Fundamentally, I think we are looking at the future of this team in the same way. You may be right, but I'm not convinced that it's a slam dunk that they're the most talentless team in the league. I don't believe that the talent gap is as wide as is commonly portrayed. I am convinced the previous coaches couldn't maximize the talent that they did have because they were terrible coaches. Bad teams/coaches can make some pretty good players look pretty bad. Brett Favre and Steve Young come to mind immediately. I'm not saying we have anyone equivalent to either on the team, but I am saying we had 53+ guys that were utilized well below their potential last year. The notable improvement with Fewell as the head coach speaks to that.

 

This season there is a head coach and GM who clearly have a vision of the team they want, something DJ never had in the time he was here, at least not offensively (defensively, he had the small part right for the Tampa 2, but I think he missed the memo about the quick part, secondary excluded). My hope is that Gailey is better at utilizing players' strengths and overcoming their weaknesses than a high school coach, and that Nix is a good enough talent evaluator to get him the players he needs over the next few years. Based on the recent discussion of DJ's lack of adjustments, as well as the fact that TE stated something to the effect of 'This is the first time in my career that I'm in an offense that calls plays to set up other plays later in the game', they managed to win 6 games last year with a coach/OC who had no fundamental understanding of how the game is played.

[Chan's relationship with Trent]

I never stated that the Jets will be a SB team. What I know for sure is that they are immensely better than the Bills. If you think the Bills are better than I am portraying them in this division then tell which team in the division is not better than the Bills? The three other teams in our division might not be as good as others are predicting. But that isn't my central point. As it stands going into this year it is my view, and the view of almost every NFL analayst on the planet, the Bills are the worst team in our division.

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that YOU had stated the Jets would be a SB team. It was more in reference to the media overhyping them. What I'm saying is that the Bills are better via addition by subtraction, and that we may actually find that they have a few NFL caliber players when they institute some NFL caliber coaching/schemes. They also have a huge number of starters coming back. Only four games separated them in the standings from the Patriots*, yet the tone of your post suggests they were a 1-15 or 2-14 team. The Jets offense was predicated on their run game, and not one of their RBs from the league leading attack is returning. Their defensive philosophy is heavily based on a player who is likely to sit out the season in a contract dispute. The Pats* are aging and maybe this is the year that Belichick's smugness catches up to him (especially since his golden boy appears less than thrilled), and I'm not sure what to think about the Phins. Honestly, I think the biggest question in the division this year is what exactly will this edition of the Bills look like. Saying they're bad because they've always been bad overlooks the fact that their coaching was REALLY, REALLY bad... so much so that other teams' players actually commented in the press about how they felt bad for Bills' players, and the new regime may address this glaring fact. I fully expect the season to be a work in progress, but expect to see them look more like a team on the rise by the end of the season. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they go 8-8, with the majority of the wins in the second half of the season. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the Jets crash and burn, especially if Sanchez cannot live up to expectations and their running game fails to resemble last year's.

[Chan's relationship with Trent]

Yeah but, say whatever you want to about the job Levy did but all problems which can be traced to Levy need to be traced beyond him to Mr. Ralph.

 

Any Levy complaints even though they may be accurate are merely a sideshow to stopping the buck where the buck really needs to stop.

 

Wouldn't you agree that:

 

1. The O for a decade playoffless streak well before Marv got here and it is silly to blame him for the debacles of the TD era, totally having a dysfunctional relationship between the owner and the GM, and a series of the owner exercising his financial right to meddle even if he is demonstrably bad at making football judgments (going back to making a handshake deal with Jimbo that was simply wrong and only he could make.

2. Ralph deserves plaudits for keeping the team here, but right along with this comes a bunch of horrendous W/Ls that happened to HIS team and these facts should be considered in context (he kept the team here) but it would be stupid to ignore reality by trying to blame this debacle on Marv.

3. Who is responsible for hiring Marv.

 

Its hard for me to see how anyone can claim this stems from Marv when pretty clearly it started before Marv was hired, continued after his short caretaker run, and if Marv is so bad then it says volumes about the guy who hired him (actually out of desperation as Mr. Ralph had so badly messed up the TD years.

 

As SJBF suggested, my post was a direct response to Kelly's post specifically about the Bills in the Super Bowl, and had NOTHING to do about Marv as GM. Taking it out of context to bash Ralph as owner is quite the agenda.

 

As for the string of other posts regarding Marv the coach, I have no problem with his regular season or playoff coaching. However, he needed to recognize when the team was overmatched (especially in the era of NFC dominance) and put together a gameplan to offset any advantage the other team might have thereby giving the team the best chance to win, even if the team across from them might be the more talented team. That's what a head coach is supposed to do. I would argue that Sean Peyton did that last year, and that Parcells did that to him in the first SB. And for those Corey posts, yeah, the read and react/bend but don't break philosophy when you have that much talent and should be able to dictate the flow of the game both offensively AND defensively was a pure waste. Can you imagine how much MORE fun we could have had if BOTH the offense and defense had that go for the throat attitude.

[Chan's relationship with Trent]

I remember the Cowboys saying the same things about the Bills defense in the Super Bowl years. IIRC some of them on offense were laughing at how vanilla and simplistic the Bills were and they always knew what we were going to do.

 

Stems from Marv insisting that the team that executed the best would win, thereby overlooking the fact that the team lining up across from them also happened to be conference champions. Throwing a wrinkle or two into a gameplan, especially in big games, happened to be a forte of all the coaches we faced those four years, and not a particular strength of Saint Levy.

[Sully is at it again but I find it hard to argue this time.]

I can't believe I'm about to do this ...

 

But ... has Sullivan been wrong in anything he's reporting on the Bills? This team has been below average for over a DECADE. A DECADE. We're fans, we don't know any better than to keep rooting for our team. Even when they're awful, which has been the case for the past decade.

 

Want to know why people get upset at Sully? Because his articles hit close to home. The truth always hurts, especially when people don't want to admit that it IS the truth.

 

This team has one of, if not the worst LB corps in the league. That's a fact. This team also has the league's worst WR corps (at the very least, the least experienced WR corps). We're also lacking any semblance of talent at OT, DE and QB. We also have a suspect GM, a meddling owner, and a recycled coach.

 

So you can say that he's just saying things to be controversial or to be a hater. But that's just not true. If he was reporting that this team is on it's way up, THAT would be a lie. This team is rebuilding (for the 3rd time in 10 years) and has a long ways to go before they are a relevant NFL franchise again.

 

Doesn't mean we as fans can't be optimistic, but to get upset at a journalist for reporting the current state of the franchise is just crazy.

 

Whether Sullivan is right or wrong is immaterial. IMO, he selects things that are obviously a problem and then he injects his own special brand of feces to the subject. His pieces are indigestion inducing purely from the amount of venom that they are laden with. I don't know about anyone else, but I can name no other columnist whose work can put me in a bad mood purely from the tone it's written in, regardless of the point it's making. When I interact with someone who is overly negative or spiteful for no reason I can leave the interaction feeling, for lack of a better word, pissy, and his writing does that to me... usually within the first three sentences.

[Chan's relationship with Trent]

What does "legitimately compete" mean to you? The Bills are in the opinion of almost every NFL analayst in the lower tier in the NFL when it comes to talent. They have been in that rut for a number of years. Being a "crusty veteran" or a "young buck" on this board has little to do with this team's very thin roster.

 

Chan Gailey is probably a better HC than Jauron. But let's not make him out to be a Lombardi. The Bills are by far the worst team in its own division. An upgrade in the coaching staff is not going to make a difference in where it ranks there.

 

If you define "legitimately competing" as being a playoff team then you are way off base. If you define your term as being in the playoff hunt (whether you make the playoffs or not)up to near the end of the season, you again are very wrong.

 

 

Being an avid fan doesn't mean that you have to lose your ability to exercise reasonable judgment. The Bills are years away from being a serious team. The obvious is usually the obvious.

 

Despite the disaster of injuries, the continued miserable coaching of DJ, axing the OC and starting LT within 10 days of the season opener, and a midseason coaching change the Bills were within 3 game of the Jets and 1 game of the Dolphins in the standings, hardly "by far" the worst team. Suggesting a better coached team with a number of injured starters returning can't show a significant improvement in the standings is more than a bit pessimistic. I think the continued frustration of mediocrity combined with the utter exasperating and unwatchably boring/painful nature of Bills football over the last ten years has convinced many people that this team is much worse/more talentless than it actually is. I also think that the fact that the Pats* are in our division has led to the national media thinking the AFC East is much tougher than it actually is. While we won't actually know until the regular season starts, I think the Jets and 'Phins, and possibly even the Pats* will turn out to be more preseason hype than reality. The idea that the Jets are SB or bust makes me laugh.

[Joique Bell Highlights/Pic Tribute...]

Uh, the guy scored 70 something TD's at Wayne State... you'd think they could find more than every angle of his TD against the 'Skins, a few practice shots, a few live game shots, and a bunch of stills to fill 4 minutes worth of video. (Not so much a commentary on posting it, more a heads up for those expecting a bit more out of their 4 minutes). That said, he was dominant against DII talent, and doesn't appear out of place thus far in preseason. He could be a small school gem and give us some flexibility to deal ML if the need/opportunity arises. Here's to him producing more NFL highlights to fill out the next tribute.

[Buffalo News Poll:]

he was saying that drafting for need would make the Bills end up with overpaid mediocre players and I was simply point out that drafting the best player avaialble (as they supposedly do) has gotten them overpaid mediocre players.

 

Thus the disconnect. I would argue that they have drafted for need in early rounds more often than not, with this year being the most notable exception. I would also argue that based on the post you were responding to, Rob's House was insinuating that the Bills have a history of drafting for need over talent as well.

[Buffalo News Poll:]

Get Real man! I love the Bills. I want a super bowl win. I believe we're headed in the right direction. But this season stinks of the 2001 Bills. Remember when Greggo took over? I believe they went 3-13 that season. The reason is we didn't have the players on the team to compete. If the Bills continue to Build through the draft and if there is something such as free agency in the future, we'll be a great team, as long as they draft for need and not BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE! and Get REAL FREE AGENTS, you know impact players?

 

Drafting for need in the first few rounds when there is a huge disparity between the talent level of your need and the talent level of the BPA results in a team devoid of playmakers. Have you enjoyed watching that team for the last ten years? The tone of your post would suggest you haven't.

[Buffalo News Poll:]

Is that unlike what we have now ? e.g.: Whitner, Poz, Lynch, McKelvin, McCargo, Evans, etc.

Actually, mediocre would be a step up from where were are now.

 

I think that was his point, those are drafting/reaching for need, which was what he was arguing against when he said it results in overpaid mediocrity. Don't know that I'd include Evans or Lynch in that, though.

[Gailey already blaming O-Line]

Did you watch the last Pittsburgh preseason game ... the guy looked like a turnstile - he was abused.

 

Roethlisberger spun him around and had his skirt up over his head before he even had a chance to finish his roophy laced beer!

 

[Gailey already blaming O-Line]

While I expect the OL to be a problem for the Bills this year, it should be mentioned THREE starting linemen were out for the last game.

 

Just sayin'...

 

And after the first series, TWO starting running backs (in what is reportedly supposed to be a run first scheme). Nothing like a Varsity-JV scrimmage.

[Gailey already blaming O-Line]

Who is getting abused in Pittsburgh.

 

Is Roethlisberger still lining up behind RT?

[Who will lead the Bills in sacks?]

i think Edwards will lead the team in sacks...

 

Trent Edwards!

 

I was gonna say Bell.

 

However, anatomically speaking it should be a dead heat... but my concern is there are a number of Sallys that could actually finish last in that race!

[The right thing to do with Trent Edwards]

If you are the GM, you've got to consider...do I go through another season of the known quantity (TE, RF) and potentially get the same result as if I played my unknown quantity (BB, LB)?

 

If the known gets you to say 4-12, and the unknown can get you to the same place, which do you choose?

 

For me, I choose seeing what BB and LB have got.

 

I would argue that RF is the only known quantity at present. I think Gailey and Nix are trying to determine how much of TE's failure over the last season and a half was him and how much was the absurd coaching situation. IMO, Nix has done everything short of publicly scoff at the stupidity of last year's staff and I think he and Gailey are willing to give TE the benefit of the doubt for the preseason, at least. The fact they had interest in McNabb is enough to tell me they're not sold on the guy as the future.