Paging TBN sports editor: this is Exhibit A of why I won't subscribe to TBN

[BringBackOrton]

29 minutes ago, JoshBarnett said:

Yes, you can consider me emailed. ... 

 

Since I have been accused by some that I only come here to promote stuff, I appreciate that other recognize that I am here to take criticism and feedback, too ... 

 

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We have a staff of multiple people covering multiple areas of the Bills, including X's and O's, in-depth features, scouting on future opponents and myriad other topics. I am sure you can pull a particular piece from any of them that you don't like or agree with -- and there are pieces from other outlets that I think are really good that you might love too -- but I think we are the most thorough and complete of any outlet covering the Bills on and off the field ... 

 

Given that you don't subscribe, you also are judging one paragraph in a 1,000 word column and comparing it to a full column from elsewhere. Would reading the whole thing change your mind? Maybe, maybe not. But I will extend that offer. Send me your email and I will send you the full text, although someone has posted another portion of it ... 

 

Thanks, Josh

 

 

Josh is killing it!  I may buy another subscription now.

[Thurman#1]

43 minutes ago, Fred Marchibroda said:

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.  He says Wood took ANOTHER wrong turn in ANOTHER EMBARRASSING moment and then went on to call him another PETTY PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE.  This is Eric Wood, not (fill in the blank).  The article is even more embarrassing then the press conference.  And that says something.   

 

Just my .02

 

 

Nope. Bucky said, "It turned into an apparent dispute over money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete." That's not calling him petty. It's saying that's how he looked making this decision.

 

And the "another wrong turn" thing, along with the "another embarrassing moment" thing that you mention is referring to the story in the first paragraph told by Fitzy. 

 

"We're coming out of the tunnel, and [Wood] leads the team out on the field, and he runs to the Cincinnati sideline. He gets about 35 yards out and realizes it, and he has to take an immediate left to jog over to our sideline. It was one of the more embarrassing moments for him."

 

Embarrassing moment. Wrong turn. See what he did there? When you look at things out of context, it's easy to misunderstand. The OP probably wasn't trying to be misleading, but he absolutely was, taking a very reasonable bit of writing and making it look inflammatory.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[YoloinOhio]

7 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nope. Bucky said, "It turned into an apparent dispute over money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete." That's not calling him petty. It's saying that's how he looked making this decision.

 

And the "another wrong turn" thing, along with the "another embarrassing moment" thing that you mention is referring to the story in the first paragraph told by Fitzy. 

 

"We're coming out of the tunnel, and [Wood] leads the team out on the field, and he runs to the Cincinnati sideline. He gets about 35 yards out and realizes it, and he has to take an immediate left to jog over to our sideline. It was one of the more embarrassing moments for him."

 

Embarrassing moment. Wrong turn. See what he did there? When you look at things out of context, it's easy to misunderstand.

 

 

 

 

Ahhhhhh, Very interesting. Thanks. 

 

But would announcing at a press conference that he's retiring force the Bills to put him as retiring this year so he'd go on this year's cap? I doubt it. That would come down to when he put in his papers, wouldn't it?

Good question. I’ve been wondering myself. It sounds like the NFLPA was very involved.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

56 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

You say that Gleason attacked Wood's character. I disagree. Looked to me like he was attacking Wood's decision and actions in this case. Here's a quote from the article:

 

 

Keep in mind that the article is behind a paywall.  So I read the "teaser" on TBD.  "Wood took another wrong turn in another embarassing moment"

"It turned into an apparent dispute about money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete"

 

You may say he's attacking Wood's decision and actions.  I think that's a distinction without a difference here.  He's pretty durn close to calling Wood "petty" - in fact calling any professional athlete that disputes about money "petty" - and his first sentence implies that Wood has made a series of wrong turns (since this is another) and a series of embarassing moments (since this is another).

 

That may not be what he meant, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the actual words he used.  

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Paging that chap who is a TBN sports editor and kindly comes by here from time to time asking for input about the sports coverage.

This article (behind the TBN paywall) is Exhibit A of why I will not pay to subscribe to TBN, despite the chance to feed my Bills fixation.

We don't even know what Woods press conference was all about yet for sure - the team having no cap due to rollover?  the team wanting Wood's bonus returned if he retires, even if it's a "forced retirement" due to injury?  Wood saying he would like to retire but not understanding the financial implications attached to that word 'retire' by the CBA?

 

And yet here is Gleason, making assumptions that enable him to attack the character of a beloved Bills player.  Beane even said "we don't have the cap space for him to retire at the moment", which clearly implies a problem on the Bills side.  But hey, let's not confuse ourselves with facts.

 

You can print such "rush to judgement", negative coverage abusing professional athletes if you choose, and I can choose not to pay for it.

If anyone has his contact info, feel free to email this (or provide it to me and I'll email).  Enough is enough.

 

 

45 minutes ago, Fred Marchibroda said:

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.  He says Wood took ANOTHER wrong turn in ANOTHER EMBARRASSING moment and then went on to call him another PETTY PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE.  This is Eric Wood, not (fill in the blank).  The article is even more embarrassing then the press conference.  And that says something.   

 

Just my .02

 

40 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

"another wrong turn". that's fantastic arse hat.  He needs a swift kick in the nuts. should be embarrassed to print such wordings

 

Show some etiquette. Bills drafted Wood and he is going to retire a Bill.
Thats respect earned

 

and Josh thank you.

 But that's enough for me in that particular writing exercise.
Speaking to this article only. Not your publication.

 

9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nope. Bucky said, "It turned into an apparent dispute over money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete." That's not calling him petty. It's saying that's how he looked making this decision.

 

And the "another wrong turn" thing, along with the "another embarrassing moment" thing that you mention is referring to the story in the first paragraph told by Fitzy. 

 

"We're coming out of the tunnel, and [Wood] leads the team out on the field, and he runs to the Cincinnati sideline. He gets about 35 yards out and realizes it, and he has to take an immediate left to jog over to our sideline. It was one of the more embarrassing moments for him."

 

Embarrassing moment. Wrong turn. See what he did there? When you look at things out of context, it's easy to misunderstand. The OP probably wasn't trying to be misleading, but he absolutely was, taking a very reasonable bit of writing and making it look inflammatory.

Ya'll just got assumption smacked down.  

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Keep in mind that the article is behind a paywall.  So I read the "teaser" on TBD.  "Wood took another wrong turn in another embarassing moment"

"It turned into an apparent dispute about money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete"

 

You may say he's attacking Wood's decision and actions.  I think that's a distinction without a difference here.  He's pretty durn close to calling Wood "petty" - in fact calling any professional athlete that disputes about money "petty" - and his first sentence implies that Wood has made a series of wrong turns (since this is another) and a series of embarassing moments (since this is another).

 

That may not be what he meant, but it's a reasonable interpretation of the actual words he used.  

You didn't read the article.  You called out Gleason, the TBN Sports Editor, and the publication itself for making assumptions because of your own incorrect assumptions.

 

That's what they call irony, chach.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

48 minutes ago, JoshBarnett said:

Yes, you can consider me emailed. ... 

 

Since I have been accused by some that I only come here to promote stuff, I appreciate that other recognize that I am here to take criticism and feedback, too ... 

 

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We have a staff of multiple people covering multiple areas of the Bills, including X's and O's, in-depth features, scouting on future opponents and myriad other topics. I am sure you can pull a particular piece from any of them that you don't like or agree with -- and there are pieces from other outlets that I think are really good that you might love too -- but I think we are the most thorough and complete of any outlet covering the Bills on and off the field ... 

 

Given that you don't subscribe, you also are judging one paragraph in a 1,000 word column and comparing it to a full column from elsewhere. Would reading the whole thing change your mind? Maybe, maybe not. But I will extend that offer. Send me your email and I will send you the full text, although someone has posted another portion of it ... 

 

Thanks, Josh

 

 

 

Fair offer.  Responded by PM

[BringBackFergy]

Man...don’t y’all have anything else to whine about in your lives other than a BN article. Geezum.

[Thurman#1]

 

 

31 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

When Beane said they don’t have any cap

space, he wasn’t referring to their 2018 cap space, which isn’t available until the new league year in March. He was referring to the 2017 league year cap space which they had already rolled over to 2018. They didn’t anticipate a suddenly retirement in January that would cost cap space. He is welcome to officially retire. He just can’t do it until March. 

 

 

Ahhhhhh, Very interesting. Thanks. 

 

But would announcing at a press conference that he's retiring force the Bills to put him as retiring this year so he'd go on this year's cap? I doubt it. That would come down to when he put in his papers, wouldn't it?

[co_springs_billsfan]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

Ahhhhhh, Very interesting. Thanks. 

 

But would announcing at a press conference that he's retiring force the Bills to put him as retiring this year so he'd go on this year's cap? I doubt it. That would come down to when he put in his papers, wouldn't it?

Yes and no. The paperwork should matter for NFL salary cap issues.

But him retiring may be different in legalese than an injury retiring him. I think if he just retired he would have to pay back some of the up front bonus for not serving the entire contact.  Semantics to you and I but important distinction for the lawyers...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Thanks Josh.

This is how things go here too often, unfortunately.

It's been pretty widely accepted that Wood and/or his people created this debacle and it was avoidable.  Why shoot a messenger for pointing that out?  

Keep up the good work and thanks for being a stand up guy.  I'll keep reading.

 

I don't know where it's "widely accepted".  I see plenty of blame to go around (and FWIW Pollack and Wawrow seem to also), blame on both sides.

 

From how I see it, the press conference took place in a Bills facility using Bills equipment.  That it took the form that it did, is a PR black eye for the Bills.  The Bills could have ensured that Wood and his people were aware of all the contract ramifications in the 10 days/2 weeks it was scheduled.  Even within a few days, they could have designated their PR people work with Wood and his agent/people to craft something that fulfilled the need to "not retire" while being more graceful and gracious.

 

Yes, Wood asked for the press conference and he/agent/people should have been more proactive ahead of time in figuring things out as well.

 

Both sides share avoidable blame.  IMO.

 

 

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Who the H came up with that headline?

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't know where it's "widely accepted".  I see plenty of blame to go around (and FWIW Pollack and Wawrow seem to also), blame on both sides.

 

From how I see it, the press conference took place in a Bills facility using Bills equipment.  That it took the form that it did, is a PR black eye for the Bills.  The Bills could have ensured that Wood and his people were aware of all the contract ramifications in the 10 days/2 weeks it was scheduled.  Even within a few days, they could have designated their PR people work with Wood and his agent/people to craft something that fulfilled the need to "not retire" while being more graceful and gracious.

 

Yes, Wood asked for the press conference and he/agent/people should have been more proactive ahead of time in figuring things out as well.

 

Both sides share avoidable blame.  IMO.

 

 

 

Why would you write the preceding paragraph and then the bolded sentence?  Makes no sense.  He asked for the conference.  His agents knew the terms of his contract so.....why would the Bills have to "ensure" all of that?  And yes, the Bills gave Wood the company space to make whatever announcement he chose to make----that's a "black eye"??

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:

So you won't pay for coverage because they post articles you won't agree with sometimes?

Well, I'm not sure they expect customers like you, anyway.

 

jmc channels Aesop's Fox on behalf of TBN:  "Dem grapes (er, reader) damn sour anyway!"

 

I would expect I'm a demographic TBN would like to court.  I live out of the area.  I've been an avid Bills fan since grade school.  Before the internet, I used to subscribe to Shout! and other print fan publications that I received by mail.  Online, I have digital subscriptions to half-a-dozen periodicals and newspapers across the country.  I have demonstrated and enduring interest in B'lo sports teams, and demonstrated and enduring willingness to pay for online content I value.

 

But, maybe you're right, and not.

 

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

jmc channels Aesop's Fox on behalf of TBN:  "Dem grapes (er, reader) damn sour anyway!"

 

I would expect I'm a demographic TBN would like to court.  I live out of the area.  I've been an avid Bills fan since grade school.  Before the internet, I used to subscribe to Shout! and other print fan publications that I received by mail.  Online, I have digital subscriptions to half-a-dozen periodicals and newspapers across the country.  I have demonstrated and enduring interest in B'lo sports teams, and demonstrated and enduring willingness to pay for online content I value.

 

But, maybe you're right, and not.

 

I'm sure they would like to court every customer possible.  Sometimes, unreasonable customers prove too difficult and costly to bother trying.

[Punching Bag]

2 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

It sure seems as if there are more than a couple bitter journalists/radio personalities in Buffalo.

 

I'd hesitate to call them "journalists".

[BadLandsMeanie]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

The article seems reasonable to me. Gleason said a lot of good things about Wood. 

 

You say that Gleason attacked Wood's character. I disagree. Looked to me like he was attacking Wood's decision and actions in this case. Here's a quote from the article:  

 

"It's important to consider the source in what evolved into one of the more bizarre hours along One Bills Drive in recent memory. For nine years, Wood stood before the masses and answered questions that were much tougher than the ones that would have been raised had his news conference gone off without a hitch. Because he was so late, and his behavior was so out of character, he invited more questions."

 

That's not attacking his character. Just the opposite, really. Nor did he do so in the rest of the article. What portion of this article attacked Wood's character?

 

But the team has plenty of cap. $30 mill for 2018 right now, pretty much exactly in the middle of the league. 

 

Fair enough that you don't like the article, everyone's got a right to an opinion. 

 

You always defend those scurrilous, lazy dogs.

[baskingridgebillsfan]

3 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

It sure seems as if there are more than a couple bitter journalists/radio personalities in Buffalo.

and they all work for the news except Vic .Timmy is cringe worthy at least once a week on twitter 

[BadLandsMeanie]

The funny thing is, I DO pay for the subscription. But I don't read the Buffalo News lead columnists. 

I subscribed to read The Voice of The Fan and I just haven't canceled yet. He was worth my whatever, 80 cents a week.

 

The "Bucky" article here is a good example. Needlessly negative. Oh so oversensitive. Poor offended Bucky.

 

But mainly, it is lazy. Emotion and negativity and boo hooing and all that is so completely easy. I  am not sure how many days work the Bucky's and Jerry's and the other shameless unproductive un-insightful and rather stupid TBN newsies milk the paper for one of those articles of theirs. 

But I see an hour's work. I am convinced that is why the do what they do. It is so easy.

 

In contrast we have the Olean article which took work, research , thought, and fact checking.

 

And the stuff they ran from our own Kelly the Dog is tons of work. A whole concept with word play and puns and jokes (at least one of which was funny every week).

And his stuff is COMPLETELY original in content and form and style. It is his own unique creation.

 

Bucky and Jerry's stuff sounds a lot like what one might hear from a drunk in a bathroom stall ranting to his (hopefully) imaginary friend in there.

 

Anyway thanks for mentioning this Hap. As I said, I don't read it so I missed it.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Dadonkadonk]

Ask Bucky, if he was fired and had a clause in his contract to get paid 120 days or so. Do you think he would give up the money?  Small mind. Small newspaper.  Hack journalist.

[Thurman#1]

 

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

You always defend those scurrilous, lazy dogs.

 

I don't. Not always.

 

But I do tend to attack stuff I find knee-jerk or unthinking. Some attacks on media and stories make sense. Plenty, really. Others - most, really - are reflex reactions to the word or simple hate for anyone who says anything anti-Bills. And there's a lot of room for intelligent anti-Bills sentiment with how this team has performed for seventeen years, though I do like the direction the new leadership is taking so far.

 

But this thread absolutely falls into that category, an attack on the media without all the facts. When you read the story it becomes very clear that what he's saying is reasonable. But attacking at the mention of the word "media" or "reporter" is the default setting of many or most on here and in the world today. They make a great scapegoat.

 

Hapless is an asset to these boards, in my top twenty posters list. You're on that list, too, by the way, Meanie, even though I haven't actually written a list down, nor am I likely to. But this was a reflex reaction without the facts.

 

 

1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

The funny thing is, I DO pay for the subscription. But I don't read the Buffalo News lead columnists. 

I subscribed to read The Voice of The Fan and I just haven't canceled yet. He was worth my whatever, 80 cents a week.

 

The "Bucky" article here is a good example. Needlessly negative. Oh so oversensitive. Poor offended Bucky.

 

But mainly, it is lazy. Emotion and negativity and boo hooing and all that is so completely easy. I  am not sure how many days work the Bucky's and Jerry's and the other shameless unproductive un-insightful and rather stupid TBN newsies milk the paper for one of those articles of theirs. 

But I see an hour's work. I am convinced that is why the do what they do. It is so easy.

 

In contrast we have the Olean article which took work, research , thought, and fact checking.

 

And the stuff they ran from our own Kelly the Dog is tons of work. A whole concept with word play and puns and jokes (at least one of which was funny every week).

And his stuff is COMPLETELY original in content and form and style. It is his own unique creation.

 

Bucky and Jerry's stuff sounds a lot like what one might hear from a drunk in a bathroom stall ranting to his (hopefully) imaginary friend in there.

 

Anyway thanks for mentioning this Hap. As I said, I don't read it so I missed it.

 

 

 

 

 

OK, Meanie, what's "needlessly negative" about this? You can read the article, so tell me, what part is needlessly negative?

 

I subscribe too. I find the News' coverage first-rate. I certainly don't always agree, but they're generally interesting and thought-provoking even when I disagree.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Thurman#1