Older negative reporters

[Chas56]

I've seen some discussion of this before. Forgive me if I am repeating a topic. A lot of people seem to find Jerry Sullivan negative. I am in Rochester, and we have Sal Maiorana, Bob Matthews, Leo Roth, and Scott Pitoniak as sports reporters/announcers/hosts that I find negative about the Bills quite a bit.

 

Yesterday, for example, Pitoniak was rehashing the Watkins trade, arguing that it wasn't worth it, that the Bills could have had Beckham, etc. His co-host, Dan Borrello pointed out that it was more likely that the Bills would have drafted Ebron, a first year bust. I would add, that then we would not have Watkins, not have a true #1 WR at all because we would have drafted Ebron. We also would not have Clay. We would still need a #1 WR and #1 TE, and, as Pitoniak's co-host also pointed out, this year's draft class is weak, maybe 18 deep for true first round value. We would be drafting right about then, getting probable second round value from a first round choice.

 

But, instead, we do have Watkins (and Clay), and we still have a second round pick in 2015, a good value.

 

I think we need new, younger people writing and talking sports in Western New York. All these older guys are jaded by the past fifteen years and are so negative it makes it difficult to listen to them. Borrello and anther younger guy in Rochester, Dan Moriarty, might be the new guys.

 

 

[Lurker]

They're paid to stir the pot and get readers taking about them. In the case you describe, they've done their job...

 

 

[VABills]

Actually without Watkins we would have been picking in the top 18 and likely top 10. So we would have gotten a true first rounder and maybe even a better trade up from another team this year. So Watkins actually hurt us because now we don't have a #1 and we are likely drafting a third rounder with our second round this year. Damn that Watkins guy.

[scribo]

I've been reading and listening to the aforementioned dinosaurs for a long time now because I consume all coverage of the Bills. They've been these negative nancies for as long as I can remember. I don't know why their publications and stations keep them, but they do. I find it laughable that Sal Maiorana bothers tweeting his articles - he is trying to sell us yesterday's news despite the fact we've all already read about and thoroughly discussed it yesterday. Has anyone listened to the Bob Matthews Show? How freakin' painful. He gets the same four guys to call in each night. But there must be enough people interested.

[Chas56]

Moving up to top 10 would have required packaging a trade, losing another pick, which indeed could have been done. My larger point was not really about the Watkins trade, it is that these guys always seem to be in the glass is half empty crowd, stirring the pot, as Lurker says, but from a pessimistic point of view. I understand and value the need to be critical, as VABills is in that last post, but it seems these guys are always coming from that angle.

[bonechiller]

It's too easy to just always say how bad they will be. They have had a better chance of being right lately.

It would take guts to predict anything positive from the team.

and If they do good, most will forget about the negativity.

You can toss DeTulio (?) in there also.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

In all fairness, we have a team that has not made the playoffs for 16 years. That is a generation of poor and mediocre teams.

 

If I had to write articles about a team that has gone nowhere for so long, my articles would be "negative" as well.

 

 

[ddaryl]

Actually without Watkins we would have been picking in the top 18 and likely top 10. So we would have gotten a true first rounder and maybe even a better trade up from another team this year. So Watkins actually hurt us because now we don't have a #1 and we are likely drafting a third rounder with our second round this year. Damn that Watkins guy.

 

I stopped reading their articles for the most part. I think the BN sports journalists are a complete joke

[1billsfan]

Moving up to top 10 would have required packaging a trade, losing another pick, which indeed could have been done. My larger point was not really about the Watkins trade, it is that these guys always seem to be in the glass is half empty crowd, stirring the pot, as Lurker says, but from a pessimistic point of view. I understand and value the need to be critical, as VABills is in that last post, but it seems these guys are always coming from that angle.

 

I totally agree with your post and I'm an older guy. The Bills media is full of boorish imbeciles who think they know football but are just whiney little b*****s. For being old, they certainly know how to act childish when being critical of the Watkins trade by saying the Bills could have had ODB. That's like saying the Bills could have had JJ Watt over Marcel Dareus (if they had traded up using a first the following year for Dareus). It's childish to say that you should have drafted this other guy who's a star when no one had them pegged as a star or ranked higher than the player they got in the draft.

 

I'm embarrassed for the local Buffalo radio and print media. I listen to the philly sports station and they're a thousand times better because they KNOW football, they're EXCITED to talk about about it and they're ENTHUSIATIC talking about it.

 

These guys who continue to trash the Watkins trade will be embarrassed in a couple of year to have that stuff in print.

[PromoTheRobot]

In all fairness, we have a team that has not made the playoffs for 16 years. That is a generation of poor and mediocre teams.

 

If I had to write articles about a team that has gone nowhere for so long, my articles would be "negative" as well.

 

 

Being a reporter means reporting on what is happening. If you go in thinking you will be negative you are not reporting, you are a being a troll. Most of these guys really need to be replaced. Most of them are mailing it in, running off the fumes of their reputations.

 

Another embarrassing example is the BN's Mike Harrington wetting his Depends over the Sabres not holding a post-season press conference.

Edited April 29, 2015 by PromoTheRobot

[jumbalaya]

Older negative reporters or younger naive readers?

[1billsfan]

Older negative reporters or younger naive readers?

 

I get the sense that the older reporters are oblivious to what's coming. They have hurt feelings from years and years of bad Bills teams and their "go to" is being critical or apathetic.

 

I think the younger fans have clarity and know how many good players are on the team and they know that this Bills team is going to put up double digit wins regardless of whether the QB is Manuel or Cassel.

 

It will be fun watching these cranky old reporters huff and puff trying to catch the Bills bandwagon after they demolish the Colts and Pats.

[vorpma]

In all fairness, we have a team that has not made the playoffs for 16 years. That is a generation of poor and mediocre teams.

 

If I had to write articles about a team that has gone nowhere for so long, my articles would be "negative" as well.

 

 

Older negative reporters or younger naive readers?

The teams record speaks for itself!

[The Crowing Rooster]

I've seen some discussion of this before. Forgive me if I am repeating a topic. A lot of people seem to find Jerry Sullivan negative. I am in Rochester, and we have Sal Maiorana, Bob Matthews, Leo Roth, and Scott Pitoniak as sports reporters/announcers/hosts that I find negative about the Bills quite a bit.

 

Yesterday, for example, Pitoniak was rehashing the Watkins trade, arguing that it wasn't worth it, that the Bills could have had Beckham, etc. His co-host, Dan Borrello pointed out that it was more likely that the Bills would have drafted Ebron, a first year bust. I would add, that then we would not have Watkins, not have a true #1 WR at all because we would have drafted Ebron. We also would not have Clay. We would still need a #1 WR and #1 TE, and, as Pitoniak's co-host also pointed out, this year's draft class is weak, maybe 18 deep for true first round value. We would be drafting right about then, getting probable second round value from a first round choice.

 

But, instead, we do have Watkins (and Clay), and we still have a second round pick in 2015, a good value.

 

I think we need new, younger people writing and talking sports in Western New York. All these older guys are jaded by the past fifteen years and are so negative it makes it difficult to listen to them. Borrello and anther younger guy in Rochester, Dan Moriarty, might be the new guys.

It was Leo Roth that wrote that article if you want to call it that.

[H2o]

Actually without Watkins we would have been picking in the top 18 and likely top 10. So we would have gotten a true first rounder and maybe even a better trade up from another team this year. So Watkins actually hurt us because now we don't have a #1 and we are likely drafting a third rounder with our second round this year. Damn that Watkins guy.

Ok, if that is the case I think we are in an ENTIRELY different situation right now with Marrone staying on for another year trying to "right the ship" with Nathaniel and we're still screwed.

[zonabb]

What's amazing to me is the 20/20 hindsight everyone works with. I guess a one year sample size is all we need to write this off as a bad trade. And no need to suggest that Eli Manning helped ODB more than Orton did SW. I don't recall Atlanta getting as slayed as the Bills have been when they trade with Cleveland and moved up to 6th to get Julio Jones. They traded five draft picks, their 27th, 59th, and 124th that year and their 1st and 4th the following.

[Chandler#81]

I've seen some discussion of this before. Forgive me if I am repeating a topic. A lot of people seem to find Jerry Sullivan negative. I am in Rochester, and we have Sal Maiorana, Bob Matthews, Leo Roth, and Scott Pitoniak as sports reporters/announcers/hosts that I find negative about the Bills quite a bit.

 

Yesterday, for example, Pitoniak was rehashing the Watkins trade, arguing that it wasn't worth it, that the Bills could have had Beckham, etc. His co-host, Dan Borrello pointed out that it was more likely that the Bills would have drafted Ebron, a first year bust. I would add, that then we would not have Watkins, not have a true #1 WR at all because we would have drafted Ebron. We also would not have Clay. We would still need a #1 WR and #1 TE, and, as Pitoniak's co-host also pointed out, this year's draft class is weak, maybe 18 deep for true first round value. We would be drafting right about then, getting probable second round value from a first round choice.

 

But, instead, we do have Watkins (and Clay), and we still have a second round pick in 2015, a good value.

 

I think we need new, younger people writing and talking sports in Western New York. All these older guys are jaded by the past fifteen years and are so negative it makes it difficult to listen to them. Borrello and anther younger guy in Rochester, Dan Moriarty, might be the new guys.

 

You lost me with 'I'm in Rochester'..

JK. It's how you sell these days. You want fandom? Come here!

Wait! Maybe not...

[scribo]

You lost me with 'I'm in Rochester'..

JK. It's how you sell these days. You want fandom? Come here!

Wait! Maybe not...

How many training camp sessions will you be able to make? I'll make them all being I live right here. And I can make the easy drive for the games, too.

[Jerry Jabber]

Mike Schopp is another negative Nancy. If he's doing the Bills post game show, regardless if it's a win or loss, he'll be pissing and moaning and acting like the Bills are a 2-14 team.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Jerry Jabber

[The BLUES Brothers]

I agree - you'd think these guys have to realize it is the Fans of the Team listening to the show. I hate the Dolphins - but I am not going to tune into a Miami Radio station to try and catch them talking smack about their local team.