FireChan Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I pretty much agree with this. I probably attribute more reliance on EJ to Whaley than you, but overall I think you're more or less right. To be clear, I'm not saying that he's been terrible as a GM. Just that I haven't liked the way he's handled the QB position. And moreover that it's a results oriented business and I'll consider him a great GM when he builds a great team, but for now the jury's still out on that. Yep. I'm glad we're .500 but we need to be better. And our record will reflect DW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 You think what you just posted amounts to EJ beating out the competition? No other team has ever gone into the season with only rookies at QB except for the 2013 Bills. EJ didn't beat out ****. He didn't even outperform Thad Lewis. I never said he beat anyone out. But no one did anything that clearly out-performed him either. Leinhart and Flynn, for all their hype, were flat out horrible. Orton was better and EJ was rightfully benched. Tyrod is better, and is now the starter. Again, EJ hasnt been handed anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 i still think he's a lightweight. nothing about that game changed my opinion of him. Yep. Total lightweight that pulled off the trade for Watkins, and put together numerous solid drafts. Why exactly is he a "lightweight"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I never said he beat anyone out. But no one did anything that clearly out-performed him either. Leinhart and Flynn, for all their hype, were flat out horrible. Orton was better and EJ was rightfully benched. Tyrod is better, and is now the starter. Again, EJ hasnt been handed anything. l would say the same applies for Cassel as Leinart and Co, but I apparently dont know enough to post in this thread. Edited November 9, 2015 by Tenhigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 When a person takes the negative POV more than 90% of his or her contributions and posts, you're a hater. I guess if this team had a playoff appearance and demonstrated success then my criticism at "more than 90% of his or her contributions and posts" would be unwarranted. You've been on this board long enough to know there are numerous solid posters who no longer post because the crowd predominantly goes one way and does not tolerate dissenting views. In no way is that being constructive. People have the right to express their views without fear of retaliation. If you don't like what I say ignore me. But attacks on character through name-calling such as "hater" is not constructive. It is what people who cannot develop a cogent argument do to stifle debate. Uses of the term "hater" to silence criticism is not constructive, doesn't add to the debate, and ultimately turns people off. You should know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I guess if this team had a playoff appearance and demonstrated success then my criticism at "more than 90% of his or her contributions and posts" would be unwarranted. You've been on this board long enough to know there are numerous solid posters who no longer post because the crowd predominantly goes one way and does not tolerate dissenting views. In no way is that being constructive. People have the right to express their views without fear of retaliation. If you don't like what I say ignore me. But attacks on character through name-calling such as "hater" is not constructive. It is what people who cannot develop a cogent argument do to stifle debate. Uses of the term "hater" to silence criticism is not constructive, doesn't add to the debate, and ultimately turns people off. You should know that. While this is fine, and I agree criticism shouldn't be silenced, the "let's wait to see if they it up crowd" isn't really constructive criticism. It's hating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I guess if this team had a playoff appearance and demonstrated success then my criticism at "more than 90% of his or her contributions and posts" would be unwarranted. You've been on this board long enough to know there are numerous solid posters who no longer post because the crowd predominantly goes one way and does not tolerate dissenting views. In no way is that being constructive. People have the right to express their views without fear of retaliation. If you don't like what I say ignore me. But attacks on character through name-calling such as "hater" is not constructive. It is what people who cannot develop a cogent argument do to stifle debate. Uses of the term "hater" to silence criticism is not constructive, doesn't add to the debate, and ultimately turns people off. You should know that. ONLY pointing out the negative is not constructive either, especially because I don't know you one bit but I would bet anything you don't feel that way, and you cheer wins and good plays and think some guys are good or maybe even very good. You CHOOSE, consciously, to suppress almost all good things about the Bills and their players and their front office and can't wait to jump on any chance to blast them. How is that constructive? I love dissenting opinion and having arguments here with posters who disagree with me. I'm often wrong but that's football. Ozzie Newsome is often wrong. Bill Belichick is often wrong. But you ignore good and berate bad, almost all of the time. It's the same thing, and just as bad, as Promo the Autobot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts