Jerry Sullivan is certifiable.

[Thurman#1]

i have. I just read it different than you.

 

 

 

Nothing to read differently, dude. He never contradicted himself.

[Grimace]

Its hard to take a guy's history of opinion into consideration when you can't stand listening to him.

 

Every time I turn on his radio show for 5 minutes before changing it out of frustration, he's either bumbling through painful banter or having a complain-fest segment. Accuracy of comments will be pretty high if you take a team in a long slump and complain about them. This does not make him interesting or intuitive. In my limited exposure, he does the same thing with the Sabres despite their relative success.

 

Comprehensive criticism of a team can be made without sounding like everything is wrong with the world. He might be right, but I can't bring myself to care.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Grimace

[LABills08]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

 

 

I don't think these two statements are contradictory. Or exclusive of each other.

 

Sullivan said the move smacks of desperation (which, it did given as how Gailey and co. had anointed Edwards the starter long ago and then turned on him, rightfully so, after only 2 starts). And he wondered what took him so long, as in, why wasn't this figured out back in July. I mean, hindsight is 20/20 and you'll be hard pressed to find a positive Sullivan quote anywhere. He is a miserable dude. But, I mean, the Bills suck. The franchise has been mismanaged for a the better part of the last 15 years. And a common denominator of that is reactionary or erratic decision making.

 

IMO, most fans should share Sullivan's irritation after how Ralph Wilson has run this team into the ground. Doesn't mean fans should share his bitterness, but I think a lot of his points are dead on.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Union2008

[billsintaiwan]

ach. he knows what sells. plenty of reactive whinging all the time about whatever the topic of the day might be. no real analysis due to ignorance, sloth, and/or intransigence.

 

no matter. last time i was back in town the local talk radio people were frothing about cash for clunkers, and though i reckon it was a silly scheme, the vitriol and hysteria that it engendered not only on the radio, but among people in bars and restaurants i was at leads me to believe that sullivan knows his audience. too many ignorant folk lurching from crisis to crisis, pitchforks and torches close by. not everyone, obviously, but too many people in buffalo are sullivan's symbiotic cohorts.

 

i agree with bobblehead. just turn the guy off if you don't like him. i know it's hard. it's like trying not to watch fox news. even though you know exactly what it will be, you still like to see exactly how the hackneyed agenda gets furthered. but everyone should do their best.

[bowery4]

What insights are you searching for that haven't exhisted and been noted for a long time? From top (ownership) to bottom (talent level) the organization is a paragon of mediocrity. You don't need to be a genius analyst to declare a dead carcass a dead carcass. Instead of berating the critic who is calling things as he sees it, you should focus your attention on the shameful product.

 

Jerry Sullivan is very blunt and harsh in his assessment of this pathetic organization. He is not saying anything substatively different than the other more diplomatic media representatives are saying about the same disgusting product.

 

The real issue isn't that JS is tiresome in his repetitive criticisms of the franchise; the real issue is that the franchise has been inept for such a very long time. The messenger has nothing to do with the performances on the field. He is merely reporting/commenting on what he sees. That is the same ugly thing that everyone else sees.

 

I understand why Sullivan is lacking in tolerance for this very laughable organization working in a system disigned for parity. I feel the same way. It is simply inexcusable.

 

Okay I put these in red so i can go through 1 by 1 and it will be easy to follow

1. Sure it is hard to gain new insights to 10 years of suckatude but this isn't the same team or coaches, I want to hear more about why he thinks something doesn't work or whatever. I honestly hear more on here than I do from him on the subject and no one on here is paid for the analysis.

 

2. If it is truly analysis he isn't doing much analyzing.(see point 3c)

 

3. A critic:

a. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

b. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works: a film critic; a dance critic.

c. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

 

4. Yes, I seem to hear everything he says somewhere else first.

 

5. If you believe that... well the NFL is doing a better marketing job than I thought.

Edited September 27, 2010 by bowery4

[blogic2]

Trent was a low 3rd round pick!! Why are we/did we give him chances like he was a #1 pick??? He fell that low for a reason!! Fitz is a better choice right now. Edwards should be gone next year if not sooner.

 

We have 2-3 playmakers on offense (evans, spiller,and take your pick of fred, lynch and parrish (none are consistent)) We're looking at least 1 more year of poor offense unless the Bills really mine some talent in the later rounds next year or spend money they don't have in FA. The spiller pick was better than many think if you take a long range view but it's going to hurt in the short term. In Buddy we trust (for now).

[yungmack]

In preseason, Sully said he didn't like any of the QBs, and we should have tried to bring in someone else. He also said that he didn't think Edwards could get it done, and that he didn't think there had been a real competition. He doubted whether Edwards should be the QB.

 

After the first week and second weeks, he said Edwards looks absolutely lousy and shouldn't have been the starter.

 

After the switch was made, he said IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TRENT THE STARTER, then switching him out so quickly smacks of desperation.

 

This time, he said "God knows what took him so long, but he figured out that Ryan Fitzpatrick gave his team a better chance to win than Trent Edwards. He was right."

 

Nothing that doesn't make sense there. Yeah, if you take a few words out of context, you can make it look as if he was contradicting himself. Look at the statements in context and you can see he wasn't. From day one, he's been saying Trent is the wrong choice.

What the heck is wrong with you, bringing intelligence and insight into this never-ending discussion?

[Cynical]

In preseason, Sully said he didn't like any of the QBs, and we should have tried to bring in someone else. He also said that he didn't think Edwards could get it done, and that he didn't think there had been a real competition. He doubted whether Edwards should be the QB.

 

After the first week and second weeks, he said Edwards looks absolutely lousy and shouldn't have been the starter.

 

After the switch was made, he said IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TRENT THE STARTER, then switching him out so quickly smacks of desperation.

 

The problem lies right there. At what point did Jerry become the ruling authority on determining when a move smacks of desperation?

Being critical of Gailey for not making the switch during the off season is one thing. But then to bash the guy for not waiting 4 weeks before pulling the trigger is absolutely a reach in logical rational thinking. If Gailey was able to determine Trent was going to continue to make obvious and fundamental mistakes after only 2 weeks, what's the purpose of waiting 4 weeks? Because that's what Sully would do?

 

Sully's rational was illogical then and still is.

 

This time, he said "God knows what took him so long, but he figured out that Ryan Fitzpatrick gave his team a better chance to win than Trent Edwards. He was right."

 

He bashed Gailey last week for making the switch in 2 weeks instead of waiting 4.

 

Sully blasted Gailey for not benching Edwards during the off season, and when Gailey does bench Edwards, Sully then blasts Gailey on how he did it.

 

And this is why Sully's stance on this is completely irrational.

 

The topper is the statement "God knows what took him so long ...", because according to Sully, Gailey should have waited 2 more weeks.

[JohnC]

Okay I put these in red so i can go through 1 by 1 and it will be easy to follow

1. Sure it is hard to gain new insights to 10 years of suckatude but this isn't the same team or coaches, I want to hear more about why he thinks something doesn't work or whatever. I honestly hear more on here than I do from him on the subject and no one on here is paid for the analysis.

 

The problem with the Bills doesn't originate from the team, it is a byproduct of its owner and the third rate organization he has assembled. The caliber of players and coaches stem from the selection of incompetents such as Levy as a fraudulent GM, hiring Jauron, giving him an extension and more say in personnel, having Brandon presiding over the football operation etc. If the top administrators of the franchise are clueless then it shouldn't be too surprising that those they hire to make the football decisions are below average.

 

Bill Polian did a stellar job as a GM. His record in Buffalo and Indy reflects his competency. He was fired by the owner. John Butler/A.J. Smith were quality football people. They found it very difficult to work with grouchy Ralph. The owner fired both of them. They went on to San Diego and helped construct a successful franchise while the Bills continue to flounder.

 

2. If it is truly analysis he isn't doing much analyzing.(see point 3c)

 

What is there new to analyze that hasn't already been analyzed over the past decade or so? Look at the team's record over the past decade? Look at the team's performances on the field during that period of time? You complain that he is a constant critic. There is a simple reason for that: The team is consistenly mediocre, year in and year out. Do you want him to praise the team and its operation? Tell me what you find positive in the way this franchise has been operated? The caliber of ownership? The caliber of its drafting? The caliber of its free agent acquisitions?

 

3. A critic:

a. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

b. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works: a film critic; a dance critic.

c. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

 

There is no doubt that JS is very harsh in his criticism of the organization. So what. They deserve it. When a student brings home his report card from school after failing many of the tests he took don't be too surprised at how the student is graded. Don't blame the evaluator, blame the lackadaisical student.

 

If you don't like JS turn the radio off when he is on the and if you don't like what and how he writes then don't read his columns. Whether you ignore him or not doesn't change the reality that the Bills are a failed franchise.

[TheChimp]

I sure am. He is not afraid to call garbage garbage. He is not afraid to call incompetents incompetents. His blunt and harsh style sometimes can get tiresome but in general he is right in categorizing the Bills' organization as being dysfunctional. How can anyone disagree with something so obvious?

 

It's not about the critic. It's about the product.

We like to kill the messenger around here.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The problem lies right there. At what point did Jerry become the ruling authority on determining when a move smacks of desperation?

Being critical of Gailey for not making the switch during the off season is one thing. But then to bash the guy for not waiting 4 weeks before pulling the trigger is absolutely a reach in logical rational thinking. If Gailey was able to determine Trent was going to continue to make obvious and fundamental mistakes after only 2 weeks, what's the purpose of waiting 4 weeks? Because that's what Sully would do?

 

Sully's rational was illogical then and still is.

 

He bashed Gailey last week for making the switch in 2 weeks instead of waiting 4.

 

Sully blasted Gailey for not benching Edwards during the off season, and when Gailey does bench Edwards, Sully then blasts Gailey on how he did it.

 

And this is why Sully's stance on this is completely irrational.

 

The topper is the statement "God knows what took him so long ...", because according to Sully, Gailey should have waited 2 more weeks.

I agree with you the assertion that you need 4 weeks is utterly arbitrary and rather meaningless.

 

I do think that the question of "Why couldn't Gailey, if he was an offensive football genius, see from film and from spending months with Trent and 'smelling his breath' that Trent was a bad QB on the field?" is a fair question to ask. Jauron hitched his wagon to Trent and how did that go? Furthermore, if the coach feels he can resurrect a guy's career, then it seems like he should know the player's problems and work on fixing those problems. (Not saying this didn't happen, but whatever was done had no real effect.)

 

Maybe the answer is that Gailey just couldn't believe that a QB wouldn't try to make plays, that he'd jog out of bounds on 4th down, rather than risk trying to make a positive play.

 

Whatever the reason, it seems that Chan wasn't at all happy in being duped by nice showings in the bucket drills all summer. (BTW, I heard that Gailey and Trent did not hit it off from the very start. So, one possible theory is that the original decision was forced on Chan.)

Edited September 27, 2010 by Sisyphean Bills

[K Gun Special]

Nothing to read differently, dude. He never contradicted himself.

 

Dude,

he trashed them for being desperate after week 2 then bashed them for taking so long after week 3. So if week 3 is too long and he had made the move sooner it wouldve been more desperate?

 

It doesnt make sense. Sullys articles for the most part are ok if you read one week at a time.

[wardigital]

In preseason, Sully said he didn't like any of the QBs, and we should have tried to bring in someone else. He also said that he didn't think Edwards could get it done, and that he didn't think there had been a real competition. He doubted whether Edwards should be the QB.

 

After the first week and second weeks, he said Edwards looks absolutely lousy and shouldn't have been the starter.

 

After the switch was made, he said IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE TRENT THE STARTER, then switching him out so quickly smacks of desperation.

 

This time, he said "God knows what took him so long, but he figured out that Ryan Fitzpatrick gave his team a better chance to win than Trent Edwards. He was right."

 

Nothing that doesn't make sense there. Yeah, if you take a few words out of context, you can make it look as if he was contradicting himself. Look at the statements in context and you can see he wasn't. From day one, he's been saying Trent is the wrong choice.

 

It really shouldn't require anywhere near this level of clarification.

[purple haze]

Last week, Sullivan states that the QB move to Fitz "smacks of desperation."

 

This week, he wonders "what took [Gailey] so long" to make the switch from Edwards to Fitzgerald.

 

Eh?

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/columns/jerry-sullivan/article202167.ece

 

Sullivan is nothing more and nothing less than a WWE "heel." He plays his role and he does it consistently.

[LongLiveRalph]

I think everyone and their mother knows that the franchise QB wasn't on the roster coming into the season. Sullivan questioned continuously throughout the preseason why the guy who WON THE JOB last year wasn't given the opportunity to win it in the offseason. He continuously called it a "phantom QB competition." Now Gailey has proven him correct by starting Fitzpatrick and releasing Edwards.

 

I don't think Sullivan ever said Fitz would make a Pro Bowl or even achieve a .500 winning percentage. He just said that we've seen enough of Edwards to know that he isn't the guy. Fitzpatrick played better and won more last season. Sullivan was simply asking a logical question.

 

For a guy who is untalented and forgettable, Sullivan sure generates a lot of threads and responses on this site. Somebody is reading his work.

 

Isn't it the Bills' fault that his articles are recycled? He could probably take any number of articles from the last 10 years, change a few names, and bang boom send it to the printer.

[JohnC]

It really shouldn't require anywhere near this level of clarification.

 

There is no doubt that Jerry Sullivan is more bombastic and caustic than most writers. However, he is essentially saying (in a more provocative manner) the same thing that 98% of the reporters are saying about this team and franchise. How many posters on this board were outraged that most of the NFL analysts had the Bills ranked near the bottom before the season started? The NFL commentators were right and those who were upset have gone on to other miniscule issues such as the writing style or personality of a particular columnist.

[Cynical]

I agree with you the assertion that you need 4 weeks is utterly arbitrary and rather meaningless.

 

I do think that the question of "Why couldn't Gailey, if he was an offensive football genius, see from film and from spending months with Trent and 'smelling his breath' that Trent was a bad QB on the field?" is a fair question to ask.

 

It is a fair question to ask. And it's fair to criticize Gailey for not benching Edwards sooner.

 

Jauron hitched his wagon to Trent and how did that go? Furthermore, if the coach feels he can resurrect a guy's career, then it seems like he should know the player's problems and work on fixing those problems. (Not saying this didn't happen, but whatever was done had no real effect.)

 

Maybe the answer is that Gailey just couldn't believe that a QB wouldn't try to make plays, that he'd jog out of bounds on 4th down, rather than risk trying to make a positive play.

 

Very well could be. Gailey did say if the players were not trying to win, the Bills did not want them.

 

Whatever the reason, it seems that Chan wasn't at all happy in being duped by nice showings in the bucket drills all summer. (BTW, I heard that Gailey and Trent did not hit it off from the very start. So, one possible theory is that the original decision was forced on Chan.)

 

At this point, we have no idea as to "why" Gailey decided to spend the time and resources on Edwards.

 

IMHO, I think it's pretty obvious Nix does not think real highly of the past regime (i.e., Nix would have not drafted Maybin).

 

Maybe Edwards was forced on Chan.

Maybe Chan/Buddy concluded last years regime was such a cluster!@#$, any result or evaluation shouldn't be trusted.

Who knows what kind of smoke Edwards blew up Chan's ass (i.e., Trent felt lost and confused having to answer to 2-3 different people).

 

And finally, if this was Gailey's 4th year, then I would be extremely critical of the events and the timing. But it's not. It's the third game into his first season where the past regime spent 4 years embedding the concept that losing was acceptable. That alone can be a huge mental barrier to overcome.

[Green Lightning]

What insights are you searching for that haven't exhisted and been noted for a long time? From top (ownership) to bottom (talent level) the organization is a paragon of mediocrity. You don't need to be a genius analyst to declare a dead carcass a dead carcass. Instead of berating the critic who is calling things as he sees it, you should focus your attention on the shameful product.

 

Jerry Sullivan is very blunt and harsh in his assessment of this pathetic organization. He is not saying anything substatively different than the other more diplomatic media representatives are saying about the same disgusting product.

 

The real issue isn't that JS is tiresome in his repetitive criticisms of the franchise; the real issue is that the franchise has been inept for such a very long time. The messenger has nothing to do with the performances on the field. He is merely reporting/commenting on what he sees. That is the same ugly thing that everyone else sees.

 

I understand why Sullivan is lacking in tolerance for this very laughable organization working in a system disigned for parity. I feel the same way. It is simply inexcusable.

 

 

This is either Jerry, Mike Dope or the Lapdog's TSW name.

 

Jerry is just a media buffoon who's job it is to p*ss people off or to fuel discontent so his boss can sell ad-space in the paper and his radio bl*w buddies can get ratings. He's long ago left sports journalism behind and is marketing himself as a commodity. More power to him. It's a free market country. If you can't stand him, do as I do, fon't listen to him or read him. I don't as he is no longer relevant and no longer truly writing about football. He's out to sink Chan and Buddy and get some notoriety doing it. I, for one, won't help his self aggrandizing cause.

[JohnC]

This is either Jerry, Mike Dope or the Lapdog's TSW name.

 

Jerry is just a media buffoon who's job it is to p*ss people off or to fuel discontent so his boss can sell ad-space in the paper and his radio bl*w buddies can get ratings. He's long ago left sports journalism behind and is marketing himself as a commodity. More power to him. It's a free market country. If you can't stand him, do as I do, fon't listen to him or read him. I don't as he is no longer relevant and no longer truly writing about football. He's out to sink Chan and Buddy and get some notoriety doing it. I, for one, won't help his self aggrandizing cause.

 

Your view on Schoop and Bulldog are the same as mine. I don't know what they have to offer and how they stay on the air. With respect to Jerry Sullivan I respectfully disagree with you. His criticism of the organization is warranted. His abrasive style doesn't appeal to a lot of people. That is understandable. If that is the case then people should just tune out or don't read his columns.

 

As you smartly observed there is a commercial aspect to Sullivan's stage persona. Being provocative from a positive or negative aspect is a way of cultivating a market. That is part of his business. I have no problem with that.

[Sisyphean Bills]

And finally, if this was Gailey's 4th year, then I would be extremely critical of the events and the timing. But it's not. It's the third game into his first season where the past regime spent 4 years embedding the concept that losing was acceptable. That alone can be a huge mental barrier to overcome.

Good point. Gailey deserves his honeymoon period.

 

I, for one, am not excited (+ or -) by any of this. I've felt this year was a throw away season since they did so little in the off-season.