Buffalo News sports department is a joke

[Clyde Smith]

They been a joke since Felser and Wilson died.

[BUFFALOKIE]

Where have I heard this before? Better start a new thread.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

Where have I heard this before? Better start a new thread.

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[Thurman#1]

Thurman, if you are pro good journalism then you should be seeing the issues with these columns. And Sullivan clearly has had it in for Pegula since Terry challenged him on a column he wrote when he first hit town. why take the cheap shot about it being nice for Terry to show up? There is no journalistic reason to do so.

 

 

 

By now, you've proved my point. You said "Sully's article is totally refuted by Vic's," and I twice asked you to show the quotations where it happened and you've twice been unable to do so. Exactly.

 

And while the thing about the Pegulas may be clear to you it's at best unprovable, basically your opinion. Again, Jerry has said good things and bad things about the Pegulas, mostly depending on what they're doing at the time. Which is what a journalist should be doing. The journalistic reason to say that it would be nice for Terry to show up is that it's a reasonable opinion. It's that simple. A reasonable opinion with which reasonable people could disagree, but a reasonable opinion.

 

Don't like Jerry? Fair enough. Don't like the article? Again, fair enough. But that's what your objections come down to, that you don't like it, but you're trying to say there's something wrong with it and unsurprisingly not being able to show what.

It always makes me laugh when people blast the sports analysts, if you don't like them, don't click on them , the more you guys click on them for good or bad they will always be employed. Not a fan of Sullivan or Gleason so I don't click on their articles...... If you or anyone else that don't like him stop also then he will eventually go away.

 

 

 

Again, clicks don't matter to the News. That's not their profit model anymore, they're based on subscriptions.

 

But as for the rest, exactly. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like a thread, click to another. I don't know why people don't get this.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thurman#1

[BadLandsMeanie]

If you don't like it, don't read it. It's very simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But as for the rest, exactly. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like a thread, click to another. I don't know why people don't get this.

Google "irony"

[bbb]

 

 

 

By now, you've proved my point. You claimed one guy refuted another. I twice asked you to show the quotations where it happened and you've twice been unable to do so. Exactly.

 

And while the thing about the Pegulas may be clear to you it's at best unprovable, basically your opinion. Again, Jerry has said good things and bad things about the Pegulas, mostly depending on what they're doing at the time. Which is what a journalist should be doing. The journalistic reason to say that it would be nice for Terry to show up is that he thinks it worth pointing out that he didn't. It's that simple.

 

Don't like Jerry? Fair enough. Don't like the article? Again, fair enough. But that's what your objections come down to, that you don't like it, but you're trying to say there's something wrong with it and unsurprisingly not being able to do so.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193241-buffalo-news-sports-department-is-a-joke/?p=4327555

 

 

Again, clicks don't matter to the News. That's not their profit model anymore, they're based on subscriptions.

I just listened to a podcast with Tim Graham and all he talked about was clicks the whole time. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Thurman#1]

 

 

 

 

By now, you've proved my point. You claimed one guy refuted another. I twice asked you to show the quotations where it happened and you've twice been unable to do so. Exactly.

 

And while the thing about the Pegulas may be clear to you it's at best unprovable, basically your opinion. Again, Jerry has said good things and bad things about the Pegulas, mostly depending on what they're doing at the time. Which is what a journalist should be doing. The journalistic reason to say that it would be nice for Terry to show up is that he thinks it worth pointing out that he didn't. It's that simple.

 

Don't like Jerry? Fair enough. Don't like the article? Again, fair enough. But that's what your objections come down to, that you don't like it, but you're trying to say there's something wrong with it and unsurprisingly not being able to do so.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193241-buffalo-news-sports-department-is-a-joke/?p=4327555

 

 

Again, clicks don't matter to the News. That's not their profit model anymore, they're based on subscriptions.

 

 

I just listened to a podcast with Tim Graham and all he talked about was clicks the whole time. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

 

Clicks is still a factor in large parts of the industry. But not most newspapers and not the News. They're based on subscriptions. If the News cared if you clicked, they sure wouldn't stop people from accessing more than 10 stories a month online.

 

They still need to write stuff people are interested in, obviously, but they make their money these days from subscriptions.

 

EDIT: Thanks for pointing out the Graham podcast. It was interesting. They seemed to me to be talking about the whole industry, but also at the News the need to write stuff people are interested in. Their discussion of the Kiko Alonso - McCoy battle was really worth listening to.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thurman#1

[bbb]

 

 

No, dude. Clicks is still a factor in large parts of the industry. But not most newspapers and not the News. They're based on subscriptions. If the News cared if you clicked, they sure wouldn't stop people from accessing more than 10 stories a month online.

 

I don't think they do that anymore. Not since the site was redesigned..............Graham is awfully concerned about clicks. He said they get a report every Monday (the weather guy, Pignatora, actually leads everybody by a wide margin)

[HT02]

I agree with Sully a great deal of the time, I disagree with him significantly with regards to his comments about the Pegulas. While I am frustrated as anyone with the losing I am still very very grateful to them for saving the Bills. If the Bills ever left Buffalo there would never be another team to replace them. As heartbreaking as it is for the fans in San Diego, Oakland and St Louis there is at least some hope that they could get another franchise. Buffalo would be done. Putting up over a billion dollars to buy the team and keep it here is above and beyond.

 

Yes I understand the value of the team is not likely to decline and the team will make them a lot of money but I also understand that the team could make them a lot more money if they bought it and moved it to Toronto, LA or another large market. I am also surprised and impressed how they have not only not asked for a new stadium with all the bells and whistles (and lucrative PSL licenses) they have resisted pressure from the NFL to do so again protecting Buffalo and its fans.

 

All of that far far outweighs any hiring mistakes or other perceived "dumb" things they have done.

 

What immunizes them from criticism even more is that they seem to want to win as much as we do.

[Augie]

The news about the News is not really news.

 

Just win.

[BadLandsMeanie]

 

 

No, dude. Clicks is still a factor in large parts of the industry. But not most newspapers and not the News. They're based on subscriptions. If the News cared if you clicked, they sure wouldn't stop people from accessing more than 10 stories a month online.

Isn't that like saying, if they wanted you to read their newspaper, they wouldn't prevent you from just stealing it for free? They wouldn't charge for it?

 

They want to be paid. That doesn't mean they don't want online clicks. They want them, just like they want paper-based subscriptions.They just want to be paid for them.

 

It isn't because they don't care about if people read it or not.

Edited April 15, 2017 by BadLandsMeanie

[oldmanfan]

 

 

 

By now, you've proved my point. You said "Sully's article is totally refuted by Vic's," and I twice asked you to show the quotations where it happened and you've twice been unable to do so. Exactly.

 

And while the thing about the Pegulas may be clear to you it's at best unprovable, basically your opinion. Again, Jerry has said good things and bad things about the Pegulas, mostly depending on what they're doing at the time. Which is what a journalist should be doing. The journalistic reason to say that it would be nice for Terry to show up is that it's a reasonable opinion. It's that simple. A reasonable opinion with which reasonable people could disagree, but a reasonable opinion.

 

Don't like Jerry? Fair enough. Don't like the article? Again, fair enough. But that's what your objections come down to, that you don't like it, but you're trying to say there's something wrong with it and unsurprisingly not being able to show what.

 

 

 

 

Again, clicks don't matter to the News. That's not their profit model anymore, they're based on subscriptions.

 

But as for the rest, exactly. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like a thread, click to another. I don't know why people don't get this.

I said nothing about Sullivan being refuted by Vic. And yes it lis my opinion about his article. Most all poss in this board are someone's opinion. We all get that. Perhaps you should as well.

[Thurman#1]

I said nothing about Sullivan being refuted by Vic. And yes it lis my opinion about his article. Most all poss in this board are someone's opinion. We all get that. Perhaps you should as well.

 

 

Sorry, man, you're right, it was BBB that said that. I apologize for the mistake in identity. I should be more careful.

 

However, as for getting that most posts here are opinions, maybe the guy who wrote this:

 

 

And Sullivan clearly has had it in for Pegula since Terry challenged him on a column he wrote when he first hit town.

 

 

... ought to consider the same thing. It's not clear at all, except perhaps to you. Again, Sully has written good and bad things about Pegula. Has he been more negative than positive? Maybe. But IMHO that's pretty reasonable when you look at the records of the Sabres and Bills since Terry bought them.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Isn't that like saying, if they wanted you to read their newspaper, they wouldn't prevent you from just stealing it for free? They wouldn't charge for it?

 

 

Honestly, no, Meanie, it's not.

 

 

 

 

They want to be paid. That doesn't mean they don't want online clicks. They want them, just like they want paper-based subscriptions.They just want to be paid for them.

 

It isn't because they don't care about if people read it or not.

 

 

And I'm not talking about paper-based subscriptions. You can subscribe on-line. Until you do, you only get 10 articles per month.

 

They like people to read their stuff, and like it. It makes it more likely that they will subscribe. Which is their model for making money. I saw an interview with Graham a couple of years back. He said that when they were still clicks-based and he was writing the Bills blog he was checking his clicks constantly, multiple times a day and often an hour. Then they converted to subscription and he said that just totally stopped. Said he hadn't checked his clicks in six months. n't because they don't care about if people read it or not.

 

 

I agree with Sully a great deal of the time, I disagree with him significantly with regards to his comments about the Pegulas. While I am frustrated as anyone with the losing I am still very very grateful to them for saving the Bills. If the Bills ever left Buffalo there would never be another team to replace them. As heartbreaking as it is for the fans in San Diego, Oakland and St Louis there is at least some hope that they could get another franchise. Buffalo would be done. Putting up over a billion dollars to buy the team and keep it here is above and beyond.

 

Yes I understand the value of the team is not likely to decline and the team will make them a lot of money but I also understand that the team could make them a lot more money if they bought it and moved it to Toronto, LA or another large market. I am also surprised and impressed how they have not only not asked for a new stadium with all the bells and whistles (and lucrative PSL licenses) they have resisted pressure from the NFL to do so again protecting Buffalo and its fans.

 

All of that far far outweighs any hiring mistakes or other perceived "dumb" things they have done.

 

What immunizes them from criticism even more is that they seem to want to win as much as we do.

 

 

I absolutely love that about the Pegulas, that they kept the Bills here. We will always owe them for that.

 

But that can save them for criticism for only so long, and that time has passed. IMHO wanting to win isn't enough for an owner, he should do the things that make it more likely. He should've hired a football czar the first year, for instance. That would probably have prevented the Rex Ryan hiring.

 

I don't always agree with Jerry either, though maybe 70 - 80%. Much lower with Bucky, and I find him irritating often. But both make me think and challenge me, and I like that. I can see how many would dislike them, though.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Thurman#1

[bbb]

 

 

Sorry, man, you're right, it was BBB that said that. I apologize for the mistake in identity. I should be more careful.

 

However, as for getting that most posts here are opinions, maybe the guy who wrote this:

 

 

I've answered twice, although the 2nd time you might not have seen it in the reply (you saw the 2nd part of my reply and you answered that):

 

Sully is saying the Bills are idiots for wasting money (like that matters) by looking at QBs. And, they're idiots for signing Tyrod - because the reasoning was that the draft class for QBs is bad. Now, they're looking at them and furthermore, the Browns might even pick one. Since you want quotes "As usual, the QBs are shooting up the mock drafts. Mel Kiper has Mahomes up to 13. The Browns are thinking of taking Trubisky first overall" ...................And, then two inches over, Vic says:

 

So the Cleveland Browns just might not select stud edge-rusher Myles Garrett with the top overall pick of the NFL Draft and go with quarterback Mitchell Trubisky instead.

So the Buffalo Bills are taking up-close looks at Trubisky and other QB prospects they could be considering at No. 10.

Welcome to the giant cloud of smoke that permeates throughout the NFL this time of year.

It takes the form of information that might very well be short on truth but long on trying to convince other teams to react in ways that benefit clubs sharing their "intentions." In most cases, the goal is to draw trade interest from a team looking to move up.

 

Garrett is, by far, the best player in the draft. Seeing him go anywhere but No. 1 is ridiculous. If the Browns could gain more choices and still get a QB, that's a win.

[vorpma]

 

Pegula mismanaged drafts in 1999? You really need to get your head out of the sand.

 

You think drafting Jack Eichel was mismanagement? If you do - then you really need to get away from Buffalo sports, somehow. Help yourself!

OK Einstein, 1999 was the last year the Buffalo Bills made the playoffs; now try and help yourself!

Where have I heard this before? Better start a new thread.

[PromoTheRobot]

The more I think about it the state of the Buffalo News sports department might be the result of a lack of competition. Years ago there was Milt Northrup and the Courier Express. The News had Larry Felser. The two papers tried to outdo each other for stories, not burn bridges with the local teams. They were critical when necessary but it wasn't the endless, mean spirited, often contradictory, whining we get now.

Edited April 15, 2017 by PromoTheRobot

[Meathead]

I cant stand Sully. He is beating up the Bills for doing their homework and kicking the tires on the top QB's. Now if the Bills didnt have QB visits, didnt pick one in the draft and one of them because a good starting QB, Sully would be the first one in line to take his shot at the Bills.

 

exactly

 

sully rags on the bills for spending time on qbs bc it would be dumb to draft one at ten (true), completely ignoring the fact that they could end up needing that familiarity with the qb class during the draft

 

heres one very realistic scenario: bills trade down from 10, get extra picks, and by some miracle one of their top rated qbs falls to them at one of those spots ala discount double check man

 

thats like the definition of complaining for the sake of complaining

[transient]

The more I think about it the state of the Buffalo News sports department might be the result of a lack of competition. Years ago there was Milt Northrup and the Courier Express. The News had Larry Felser. The two papers tried to outdo each other for stories, not burn bridges with the local teams. They were critical when necessary but it wasn't the endless, mean spirited, often contradictory, whining we get now.

Felser was a gentleman, and even when he was being critical it felt like the team was being scolded by a grandfather. He seemed to genuinely care about the teams and PEOPLE he covered. You could hear it in the anecdotes he was fond of telling, often about off-field interaction with players, coaches, front office, and Ralph.

 

My favorite comparison is Jim Kelley. He spoke his mind, could be tough and confrontational and take the Sabres to task while still maintaining (at least the appearance) of respect, gave credit when due, was an excellent writer, and most of all stood by his integrity.

 

The last bit is the part I miss the most. IMO Graham and Carrucci used to have that before the current era of non-edited internet news.

[Bill_with_it]

Where have I heard this before? Better start a new thread.

New thread police huh? Gotta make sure you announce you have seen the thread before.