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

[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, I think - 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. But this was a reflex reaction without the facts.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

2 hours ago, co_springs_billsfan said:

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...

 

 

Why "yes and no"? I wrote nothing about Wood's contract issues or whether some bonus might have to be returned or not. My post was entirely about the cap ramifications.

 

Anyway, my mom and two sisters live in Denver and Fort Collins. If I ever move back to the US, it will be to Colorado. What a great place!

[BadLandsMeanie]

42 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Quote

 

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.

I would say he blames a lot on Woods without knowing what he is talking about for starters. He even says he doesn't know. But From the headline on, he is pointing the finger at Woods. Then he gets around to saying he is no Jim Kelly.

 

He is a classless human being because he is not careful with his words and he uses his public voice in ways that can harm people for no good reason, because Bucky is lazy.

I could write rings around him just by doing some work. I am not saying I am talented, or good, or even can spell very well. But I do my work and I would have work into what I wrote and I would not be careless and mean by insulting people for no good reason like those people are.

 

And Josh Barnett you are no better if you have any say, how these creeps use the paper.

 

That's what I think. Though I will agree Bucky and those guys have written way worse. But that doesn't make this ok.

 

Let me add something else. Bucky complains that that the statement was an hour late. And he didn't seem to like that because, who would? But also because TBN guys are entitled acting.

 

Why do I mention it? Because I would have got a story in that hour. I would have left with at least two stories. And that is just as ME, with no press credential. Because I watch, I think, and I am always looking for  a story when I am around the Bills. 

 

Why did Bucky get? Nothing. 

 

The bottom line is the guys can't write. They just haven't got it. They haven't got the moxy or the creativity. Which you can't blame them for except that they are so snotty,

Edited January 31, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Thurman#1]

2 hours 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.  

 

 

Yeah, it's a "reasonable interpretation of the actual words he used." When looked at out of context, actual words used can often say something the speaker never intended. This is why you look at context.

 

It would be reasonable interpretation of John F. Kennedy's words, "The highest appreciation is not to utter words." to say that he's being ridiculous, that compliments delivered out loud are virtually always welcome, and that we should express ourselves in cases like this.  In context, though, you find that his "actual words" are "As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them." Without context, "actual words" often don't mean what the speaker intended.

 

That's why context is necessary.

 

Again, you're a great poster, but you responded to something totally out of context. And this made you completely misunderstand his words. Which is what generally happens when someone responds without knowing the context. I'm guilty of this myself sometimes, but I do my best not to judge till I understand the complete passage and why the person said what he said.

[cba fan]

4 hours ago, White Linen said:

 

I find it very respectable that you would answer the poster.  

What? He has not answered anything.

 

He gave a canned response like a good company man. He can't say what he really wants to.

Edited January 31, 2018 by cba fan

[Rob's House]

The thing I always admired most about Wood was that despite being a multi-millionaire he continued to carry his lunch in a pail. That's character in my book. Most guys with that kind of coin would buy their lunch, but not Eric.

 

And after all those years of eating from a pail, for this !@#$ to denigrate him just makes me !@#$ing sick.

[Thurman#1]

30 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 

I would say he blames a lot on Woods without knowing what he is talking about for starters. He even says he doesn't know. But From the headline on, he is pointing the finger at Woods. Then he gets around to saying he is no Jim Kelly.

 

He is a classless human being because he is not careful with his words and he uses his public voice in ways that can harm people for no good reason, because Bucky is lazy.

I could write rings around him just by doing some work. I am not saying I am talented, or good, or even can spell very well. But I do my work and I would have work into what I wrote and I would not be careless and mean by insulting people for no good reason like those people are.

 

And Josh Barnett you are no better if you have any say, how these creeps use the paper.

 

That's what I think. Though I will agree Bucky and those guys have written way worse. But that doesn't make this ok.

 

 

What specific words?

 

Where are all these phantom insults you refer to? "Insulting people"? I don't see any insult in the article. What do you mean? He is indeed strongly questioning Wood's actions here but that's not an insult.

 

"He is no Jim Kelly," you mention. See, this is a perfect example. Put that way, it sounds bad. What was actually said meant that Wood wasn't as popular and well-known as Thurman and Kelly. "Wood, a good player on several bad teams and a better human being, invited too many people to squeeze into the media room. This is no offense to him, but we're not talking about Jim Kelly or Thurman Thomas or another icon in Bills' history. Rest assured the Bills will think twice before again being placed in such an awkward position." There's nothing wrong with what he said here. He even says, "This is no offense to him." What's wrong with what he said there? You can disagree with the opinion, but it's reasonable.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

The thing I always admired most about Wood was that despite being a multi-millionaire he continued to carry his lunch in a pail. That's character in my book. Most guys with that kind of coin would buy their lunch, but not Eric.

 

And after all those years of eating from a pail, for this !@#$ to denigrate him just makes me !@#$ing sick.

 

 

See, this is what you get when you do what Hapless did.

 

Now everyone thinks Wood was being denigrated.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Rob's House]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

See, this is what you get when you do what Hapless did.

 

Now everyone thinks Wood was being denigrated.

Just adding a little levity to the conversation.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Rob's House

[Thurman#1]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Just adding a little levity to the conversation.

 

 

 

Fair enough, mon.

 

But several people have already come on and vented about how awful the article must be. They seem to be responding to "another wrong turn" and "another embarrassing moment," not understanding that in context those do not mean anything like what you would expect.

 

And there'll be more, Pavlovian anti-media rants. With no concern for context or interest in whether they understand what was actually said.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Thurman#1

[BadLandsMeanie]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

What specific words?

 

Where are all these phantom insults you refer to? "Insulting people"? I don't see any insult in the article. What do you mean? He is indeed strongly questioning Wood's actions here but that's not an insult.

 

"He is no Jim Kelly," you mention. See, this is a perfect example. Put that way, it sounds bad. What was actually said meant that Wood wasn't as popular and well-known as Thurman and Kelly. "Wood, a good player on several bad teams and a better human being, invited too many people to squeeze into the media room. This is no offense to him, but we're not talking about Jim Kelly or Thurman Thomas or another icon in Bills' history. Rest assured the Bills will think twice before again being placed in such an awkward position." There's nothing wrong with what he said here. He even says, "This is no offense to him." What's wrong with what he said there? You can disagree with the opinion, but it's reasonable.

 

 

 

 

See, this is what you get when you do what Hapless did.

 

Now everyone thinks Wood was being denigrated.

Dude. I am not going to read it to you and explain what words mean.  

[co_springs_billsfan]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Why "yes and no"? I wrote nothing about Wood's contract issues or whether some bonus might have to be returned or not. My post was entirely about the cap ramifications.

 

Anyway, my mom and two sisters live in Denver and Fort Collins. If I ever move back to the US, it will be to Colorado. What a great place!

I don't know. Most be losing my mind. Probably thinking of other things in this thread when I wrote that.

 

I love the climate - no humidity. But I miss the "green" grass/trees/ferns etc that it comes with.

[LabattBlue]

13 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said:

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

Based on these ridiculous threads that pop up on a regular basis, I'd say it's more of a case of bitter Bills fans with nothing better to whine about than the local newspaper.  

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

13 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Based on these ridiculous threads that pop up on a regular basis, I'd say it's more of a case of bitter Bills fans with nothing better to whine about than the local newspaper.  

 

Because you seem to lack insight and perspective on yourself, you probably don't realize, this makes you someone who has nothing better to do than whine about a Bills fan complaining about a local newspaper.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

Funny, I never click on a column written by Gleason, Sullivan, or Harrington. Harrington last week was all over GR,on Twitter, snarkily saying they "tanked" by not sending PHAM on the last road trip. You could just tell he despises the radio guys, especially Jeremy White for espousing the tank, and regularly making better points than Harrington on the matter. And while Jeremy stays out of the fray and keeps it somewhat classy, Harrington is just so small and petty he airs his dirty laundry like a scorned 13-year-old on Twitter. God bless @JoshBarnett for having to deal with these 4 clowns, especially Graham and Harrington on Twitter. 

 

I have to imagine he is regularly embarrassed, not by their opinions, but how petty and small they are social media.

 

I don't understand the organizational hierarchy or job protections he may be dealing with.  If Mr Barnett is charged with improving coverage and attracting subscribers, perhaps he should strive to impact this behavior.

 

14 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.

 

Hi Thurman#1.  Now that I've read the article in full, I do disagree and feel it was attacking Wood's character, for reasons I explain in the edit of my original post.

 

I do appreciate the distinction you draw between attacking someone's decisions and actions vs. their character, but I posit it is functionally a "distinction without a difference" in practical terms.  If you walk into a Biker Bar and inform the denizens they are making lousy life decisions to ride bikes and get wasted on beer at noon vs working and driving sedans, I feel reasonably confident they will take this as a character attack and "govern themselves accordingly".

Beane said the team has no cap this year (eg 2017) because it has already rolled over to the 2018 league year.  So no, the team has no cap right now, unless there's some way to roll it back.

 

 

I would like to note, that I edited my original post to reflect the full text of Gleason's article and to note the responsiveness of Mr Josh Barnett, who kindly provided it to me for comparison. I highly commend him for being willing to dialog.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 hours 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?

 

I don't know.  I do think it might be subject to arcane league salary cap rules to which we aren't privy (hee hee- that word).  Overall, I think "retiring" and putting in retirement papers at this point would entitle the Bills to request repayment of 2/3 of the bonus he received when he signed his extension ($4.3M) - undesireable to Wood.  It would also box the Bills out of some options - undesireable to them.

 

The last "active" player I can remember retiring due to injury was guard Chris Williams.  He was placed on IR, ended the season there, then showed up at the start of training camp and was designated "released - failed physical".  This entitled him to his full bonus.  After his release by the Bills, he announced retirement. 

13 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

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

 

No, actually.  I'm very lucky and properly grateful.

 

Don't y'all have anything else to whine about in your life than me whining about a BN article?  My irony meter just sproinged.

1 hour ago, LabattBlue said:

Based on these ridiculous threads that pop up on a regular basis, I'd say it's more of a case of bitter Bills fans with nothing better to whine about than the local newspaper.  

 

 My irony meter just sproinged

[Lurker]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Don't y'all have anything else to whine about in your life than me whining about a BN article?  My irony meter just sproinged.

 

Priceless...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours 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.

 

I thought about starting another thread as it may pass unnoticed here, but I'll frame as a response here and hope to start some dialogue.  Bear with me, this is going someplace.

 

As some here know, my background is science (read: problem identification and solving), and I spent the last 10 years of my career in R&D, emphasis on D, at a Major Pharmaceutical Company (read: Evil Empire. JK.  Kinda.).  Working on project teams with clinical trial deadlines and millions or billions of dollars at stake, there was a huge emphasis on teamwork and problem solving.  It was not acceptable to lift your hands and say "what could I do after Mr Lemming made that bad decision, he ran us over the cliff!".  That didn't meet project deliverables, deadlines, or keep the organization looking good.  Yes, afterwards "lessons learned" can be done and responsibility sorted.  But not until the immediate issue at hand is resolved.  The informal motto in our group was "we can't punt on 4th down" meaning we would take every shot we could to strive for success.

 

Assertion: The desired employee behavior for a successful organization is to correctly observe and orient to the current situation, identify desirable and acceptable outcomes, and "all hands on deck" share responsibility to pitch in to achieve (at least) an acceptable outcome.

 

I think everyone can agree that Wood's press conference was a debacle and a bad look, both for him AND for the Bills.  One view is to point out Wood scheduled it apparently without full discussion and ironing out of the contract ramifications, this occurred right before the presser, it's on Wood and what could the poor Bills do once they agreed to allow him to stage the "grandiose display" (quote from Gleason article)? 

 

Wood certainly has some responsibility for what ensued.  Leaving aside the obvious counterpoint that the Bills have responsibility - before the Bills allow someone to use their facilities for a press conference,  expect due diligence on their side to determine what will take place and ensure both sides attach the same meaning to words - there is perhaps an indication of a lingering organizational concern.  AT THE POINT where Wood arrived at the presser with an emergent concern for announcing his retirement, it could be reasonably predicted that a "bad look" reflecting on the Bills organization (holding a retirement presser which wasn't, in which the chief speaker read a 90 second statement and did not take questions).  So we're at a point at which, in successful organizations, everyone pitches in and says "don't care who drove off the cliff, don't care if it's really on Mr Lemming, it's our cliff, what does an acceptable outcome look like and how can we all quickly get there?"  Were there solutions that would satisfy both the organization and Wood/his agent/the NFLPA, but also be more satisfying to the assembled visitors and press?  I don't know, but I'm going to guess "yes", and they could have been quickly found - in an organization with a culture of shared accountability for positive outcomes and reduced reliance on finger pointing and blame.

 

Reporters, including TBN reporters, liked to refer to OBD in years past as "dysfunction junction" for various well-merited reasons.  There was hope that with the arrival of McDermott and Beane, that was going to change - the lines of communication and authority would be clarified, there would be accountability and responsibility, and a winning successful franchise would emerge. 

 

What I would have liked to see, and count as a missed opportunity, was some probing into exactly how the Bills got to the point where Wood read a 90 second statement and walked off.  Who made the decision to authorize the facility use by Wood for a press conference?  Who was in the loop, with an opportunity to bring in the right people to ensure timely discussion and ironing out of any cap/contract issues, at the point of scheduling?  Who decided to change the facility from the press room to Adpro?  At the point where a last-minute problem was identified, was there any attempt by the Bills to engage their PR department with Mr Wood and his representatives and see if something with a "better look" for both sides could be quickly devised, or was it left entirely in the hands of Woods and his people?  If problem solving and assistance were offered and rejected, that's a different case.

I expect, in the 55 minutes before the presser and as people milled about afterwards, there might have been an opportunity to quietly gain information on these points, instead of "shrugging shoulders and rolling eyes" as Mr Gleason describes.  And a very interesting piece on the state of the Bills current organizational culture might have resulted.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I expect, in the 55 minutes before the presser and as people milled about afterwards, there might have been an opportunity to quietly gain information on these points, instead of "shrugging shoulders and rolling eyes" as Mr Gleason describes. 

That's my problem with Bucky's column as well.     Instead of working the room, he appears to have hung out at the buffet table--and then got upset when the party ended so soon.

 

A real columnist (like any of the guys at MMQB, or even a kid like Rodak) would have looked for other insiders to talk to.   Gleason appears to have sat on his ass and fumed.   He then went back to the BN and pounded out a snarky piece that didn't even touch on the salary cap, CBA, NFLPA or contractual issues.   

 

Lazy, lazy, lazy.   You could go in any barroom and get that kind of perspective...

[BadLandsMeanie]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I thought about starting another thread as it may pass unnoticed here, but I'll frame as a response here and hope to start some dialogue.  Bear with me, this is going someplace.

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

That was interesting. 

 

And it does shift the focus to what is more the point, how did that happen?

 

How that was allowed to occur is significant because it may foreshadow organizational problems or it might give insight into the personalities involved. Your article would have made a good article.

 

I can only guess what had happened. Based on how Eric Wood has handled his WGR radio appearances and pretty much every interview I ever saw him do, he should have handled that just fine.And I am sure he wanted to have it be a nice time for all. 

 

So I have to figure he was suddenly put in a position that he didn't have to time to adjust to and put a decent spin on it. 

 

Someday maybe we will find out what went on there. 

 

[BringBackFergy]

10 hours ago, Lurker said:

That's my problem with Bucky's column as well.     Instead of working the room, he appears to have hung out at the buffet table--and then got upset when the party ended so soon.

 

A real columnist (like any of the guys at MMQB, or even a kid like Rodak) would have looked for other insiders to talk to.   Gleason appears to have sat on his ass and fumed.   He then went back to the BN and pounded out a snarky piece that didn't even touch on the salary cap, CBA, NFLPA or contractual issues.   

 

Lazy, lazy, lazy.   You could go in any barroom and get that kind of perspective...

Maybe you and Hapless should get a private room and see what sproings up. 

 

This argument is dead...unless you care to start a GoFundMe campaign to seek assistance for the panties that are bunched up in your crotch.