Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

35 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The issue is that this was being discussed in another thread - with the article already linked. 

 

The OP did not like the way that was going because once again the BN released a very poorly worded teaser tweet and that caused issues.

 

Josh should not create a thread linking a pay article for his own company.  That would be like cover1charging for his service and then linking his coverage - it should be against the terms of service.  If someone else wants to link the article or if Josh wants to defend the writers that is fine, but do not link a pay article with no discussion- that is slimy.

 

My biggest issue is this is not the first time a BN article has a teaser sent out that then Josh has to come and defend the coverage because the teaser makes it sound worse and does not meet the point of the article.  The issue is they need to do either a better job of tweeting out teaser material or accept the criticisms that come with poorly worded tweets.

 

It happened with the race article and with a McCoy article where the tweet made it sound like a major issue and Josh had to provide better contents to understand it better - to me that is a huge part of the problem - they send out click bait leads and then get upset when people have not read the article get mad.  We saw it with Hap just a week or so ago.  Maybe the BN needs to do a better job at the click bait or maybe they need some new writers that are not so cynical and already leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

 

 

 

this

[JohnC]

43 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The issue is that this was being discussed in another thread - with the article already linked. 

 

The OP did not like the way that was going because once again the BN released a very poorly worded teaser tweet and that caused issues.

 

Josh should not create a thread linking a pay article for his own company.  That would be like cover1charging for his service and then linking his coverage - it should be against the terms of service.  If someone else wants to link the article or if Josh wants to defend the writers that is fine, but do not link a pay article with no discussion- that is slimy.

 

My biggest issue is this is not the first time a BN article has a teaser sent out that then Josh has to come and defend the coverage because the teaser makes it sound worse and does not meet the point of the article.  The issue is they need to do either a better job of tweeting out teaser material or accept the criticisms that come with poorly worded tweets.

 

It happened with the race article and with a McCoy article where the tweet made it sound like a major issue and Josh had to provide better contents to understand it better - to me that is a huge part of the problem - they send out click bait leads and then get upset when people have not read the article get mad.  We saw it with Hap just a week or so ago.  Maybe the BN needs to do a better job at the click bait or maybe they need some new writers that are not so cynical and already leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

 

 

As I stated before there is a simple solution: Don't read and don't click. If you don't like the BN writers and writing don't read the material. It's like going to a restaurant knowing that you don't like the food. Then after the meal you predictably complain about the food. 

 

By now you know who the poster is and who he works for. He certainly is not hiding who he is and works for. So the notion that he is participating in a hustle over people who know who is and represents is a stretch. My inclination is I would rather error on the side of participation than restriction. Ultimately you have the final authority by not reading and responding. 

[Solomon Grundy]

He sounds really "salty" to me!! Seems like he's trying to blame someone else for his terrible decision. It was an RPO, to me it's not even an option. Run the damn ball!!

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

As I stated before there is a simple solution: Don't read and don't click. If you don't like the BN writers and writing don't read the material. It's like going to a restaurant knowing that you don't like the food. Then after the meal you predictably complain about the food. 

 

By now you know who the poster is and who he works for. He certainly is not hiding who he is and works for. So the notion that he is participating in a hustle over people who know who is and represents is a stretch. My inclination is I would rather error on the side of participation than restriction. Ultimately you have the final authority by not reading and responding. 

 

 

simple solution:

 

 

thread title:  Buffalo News Article - Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville *Must Subscribe to Read Article*

[JoshBarnett]

31 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

The issue is that this was being discussed in another thread - with the article already linked. 

 

The OP did not like the way that was going because once again the BN released a very poorly worded teaser tweet and that caused issues.

 

Josh should not create a thread linking a pay article for his own company.  That would be like cover1charging for his service and then linking his coverage - it should be against the terms of service.  If someone else wants to link the article or if Josh wants to defend the writers that is fine, but do not link a pay article with no discussion- that is slimy.

 

My biggest issue is this is not the first time a BN article has a teaser sent out that then Josh has to come and defend the coverage because the teaser makes it sound worse and does not meet the point of the article.  The issue is they need to do either a better job of tweeting out teaser material or accept the criticisms that come with poorly worded tweets.

 

It happened with the race article and with a McCoy article where the tweet made it sound like a major issue and Josh had to provide better contents to understand it better - to me that is a huge part of the problem - they send out click bait leads and then get upset when people have not read the article get mad.  We saw it with Hap just a week or so ago.  Maybe the BN needs to do a better job at the click bait or maybe they need some new writers that are not so cynical and already leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

 

 

 

That is actually not what happened here in my view. We did a staggered story off one interview at intervals. We wrote six paragraphs as soon as the interview was over about the pay cut issue. That was the top of the story and we published. There was nothing wrong with the teaser and that fueled the one discussion that seems to be ongoing here. No issue at all. It was going fine. 

 

We then came back and wrote a more in-depth version that talked about the Jax play, the playoffs, Dennison and Daboll about an hour later. We also wrote a separate story just about the Jax play about three hours later. My goal was to let the people here know there was more significant news in the interview than just the original item. I thought what he said was interesting and wanted to share it so I linked to the full story. 

 

At the time, we published the extended version, the first item already had a lot of discussion. I thought the other news would get lost if I threw it in there. Having been on this board, I often find interesting things buried when the topic veers from the original point. 

 

After messaging with Hap, I realize the proper etiquette is to include a brief summary and a quote so people can discuss the article without reading it, which often happens from other sources. 

 

I also would quibble  with your definition of click bait. To me, click bait suggests that the headline or teaser doesn't reflect what is in the story. That is not the case here or in the Tyrod story or the Eric Wood piece, in my opinion. In the previous instances, we were dealing with more nuanced subjects that have context that can't be fully captured in a teaser and conclusions were being drawn that might not have been drawn had the full article been available so I addressed that for the benefit of the subjects and my staff.

 

Despite your assertion, for the record, I don't view anything wrong with the tweets that were sent in either instance. My response in those instances has nothing to do with the tweets. We always can be better at everything we do but that was not my issue in those cases.

 

In the previous Tyrod story, he talked extensively about many subjects. We tweeted several pieces of the interview but some took it as a massive story all about race. That is why I came on here to explain. As Hap can attest after he read the full Wood story, there is more there than the one tweet that he seized upon. We also sent multiple tweets on that piece that focused on different facets. That again is why I came on here. In this case, there is a full story that was written after the discussion already started about new items so this has nothing to do with any tweets at all. 

 

I have had wonderful interactions with many Bills fans since I've been in town, including lots of emails and messages from people on this board. I've also had a few people tell me that I am not welcome in your community that exists here. I have acknowledged more than once that I understand that many people don't like my staff, don't like the subscription model and other topics. I have tried to be available to address concerns people have. I have worked in other NFL markets and for a national outlet, and taken that same approach. The customer isn't always right but you are always the customer and I respect that and will continue to do so. 

 

Thanks, Josh 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

 

simple solution:

 

 

thread title:  Buffalo News Article - Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville *Must Subscribe to Read Article*

Don't want to read then don't subscribe! You act as if you are being coerced. You are not. 

 

How many threads on this board are not clear or to an extent deceptive? Magnifying an issue when there is no issue or at best is a miniscule issue makes no sense. 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Don't want to read then don't subscribe! You act as if you are being coerced. You are not. 

 

How many threads on this board are not clear or to an extent deceptive? Magnifying an issue when there is no issue or at best is a miniscule issue makes no sense. 

 

 

why be a dick about it? I just simply said make it CLEAR your thread is a pay source article? simple, not asking much and would save from clicking on it in the first place. I clicked on it yesterday and saw it was bn pay source. moved on

 

 

 

I wont go any further as I don't see the need to get worked up over asking a simple question to someone that seems irked about said question. 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, JoshBarnett said:

 

 

I have had wonderful interactions with many Bills fans since I've been in town, including lots of emails and messages from people on this board. I've also had a few people tell me that I am not welcome in your community that exists here. I have acknowledged more than once that I understand that many people don't like my staff, don't like the subscription model and other topics. I have tried to be available to address concerns people have. I have worked in other NFL markets and for a national outlet, and taken that same approach. The customer isn't always right but you are always the customer and I respect that and will continue to do so. 

 

Thanks, Josh 

The genesis for most of the hostility is from people who don't like the BN and some of its writers. (I'm not including posters such as Hap because there is thoughtful reasoning with his responses.) The disgruntled people in that category can't be appeased. Don't waste your time trying to do so. You can identify them by their classless rudeness. 

 

My inclination is that the more people who join the discussion with different perspectives elevate the discussion. Some people see it differently. 

[Rochesterfan]

58 minutes ago, JoshBarnett said:

 

That is actually not what happened here in my view. We did a staggered story off one interview at intervals. We wrote six paragraphs as soon as the interview was over about the pay cut issue. That was the top of the story and we published. There was nothing wrong with the teaser and that fueled the one discussion that seems to be ongoing here. No issue at all. It was going fine. 

 

We then came back and wrote a more in-depth version that talked about the Jax play, the playoffs, Dennison and Daboll about an hour later. We also wrote a separate story just about the Jax play about three hours later. My goal was to let the people here know there was more significant news in the interview than just the original item. I thought what he said was interesting and wanted to share it so I linked to the full story. 

 

At the time, we published the extended version, the first item already had a lot of discussion. I thought the other news would get lost if I threw it in there. Having been on this board, I often find interesting things buried when the topic veers from the original point. 

 

After messaging with Hap, I realize the proper etiquette is to include a brief summary and a quote so people can discuss the article without reading it, which often happens from other sources. 

 

I also would quibble  with your definition of click bait. To me, click bait suggests that the headline or teaser doesn't reflect what is in the story. That is not the case here or in the Tyrod story or the Eric Wood piece, in my opinion. In the previous instances, we were dealing with more nuanced subjects that have context that can't be fully captured in a teaser and conclusions were being drawn that might not have been drawn had the full article been available so I addressed that for the benefit of the subjects and my staff.

 

Despite your assertion, for the record, I don't view anything wrong with the tweets that were sent in either instance. My response in those instances has nothing to do with the tweets. We always can be better at everything we do but that was not my issue in those cases.

 

In the previous Tyrod story, he talked extensively about many subjects. We tweeted several pieces of the interview but some took it as a massive story all about race. That is why I came on here to explain. As Hap can attest after he read the full Wood story, there is more there than the one tweet that he seized upon. We also sent multiple tweets on that piece that focused on different facets. That again is why I came on here. In this case, there is a full story that was written after the discussion already started about new items so this has nothing to do with any tweets at all. 

 

I have had wonderful interactions with many Bills fans since I've been in town, including lots of emails and messages from people on this board. I've also had a few people tell me that I am not welcome in your community that exists here. I have acknowledged more than once that I understand that many people don't like my staff, don't like the subscription model and other topics. I have tried to be available to address concerns people have. I have worked in other NFL markets and for a national outlet, and taken that same approach. The customer isn't always right but you are always the customer and I respect that and will continue to do so. 

 

Thanks, Josh 

 I appreciate that and I have no issue with you coming on here to discuss things and you have been very professional in that approach.  I do have an issue with you starting a thread linking your own pay content, but understand that also. 

 

I was a regular BN subscriber for years - I have stated my opinions on the writers there -I think they have issues with to many things from past experiences and it clouds what they write. You do provide the most content of any outlet around, but when ther are at least 4 writers that I can’t stand it makes the content much less.

 

I have found other sources in both Rochester, Syracuse, and other websites with writers that I believe provide a better and more inclusive view point and that is where I go and that is for me.  

 

I have chosen where to spend my time and money -it is the same with Radio -I no longer listen to afternoon drive on WGR - Schoop and the Bulldog provide next to nothing, but I could listen to Sal for hours.  Therefore I pick up national and Rochester talk which is less in depth, but overall a better experience.

 

You are correct the customer is not always right and I appreciate you listening and just want to ensure you understand that I love having you on the board because you have a different perspective, but that was never my issue with this thread.  

 

I also do get Get that you have multiple interviews that turned into an article, but much like Race was only a small nuanced part of earlier articles - that and TT refusing a pay cut are what get messaged out because I believe that will drive more clicks than a link than saying we have an interview with TT coming up.  It is not the main emphasis of the discussion, but it is what will catch readers eyes and that is the job to drive readership - the issue is then that is what gets discussed and people get angry.  

 

It it seems to be the nature of the modern world and that is ok as long as people on both sides understand the consequences.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, JoshBarnett said:

(...)

After messaging with Hap, I realize the proper etiquette is to include a brief summary and a quote so people can discuss the article without reading it, which often happens from other sources. 

 

Thanks.

 

Quote

I have had wonderful interactions with many Bills fans since I've been in town, including lots of emails and messages from people on this board. I've also had a few people tell me that I am not welcome in your community that exists here. I have acknowledged more than once that I understand that many people don't like my staff, don't like the subscription model and other topics. I have tried to be available to address concerns people have. I have worked in other NFL markets and for a national outlet, and taken that same approach. The customer isn't always right but you are always the customer and I respect that and will continue to do so. 

 

Appreciate it.  As DBF said, " thread title:  Buffalo News: - Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville *Subscription Required*" = problem solved.  Add in a quote and a few lines of summary/discussion and it's clear the goal of the post is to contribute to discussion in the community.

 

To the bolded, say rather, "the writing approach specific members of your staff have developed over the years" (and the editorial approach that has fostered and enabled that instead of saying - hmmm, I think you need to dig a bit more on that).  I have nothing personal at all about Mr Sullivan and Mr Gleason, they may be fine upstanding guys.  I can also remember when they were well worth reading.   BBFS (Buffalo Bills Fan Syndrome) impacts us all.

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The genesis for most of the hostility is from people who don't like the BN and some of its writers. (I'm not including posters such as Hap because there is thoughtful reasoning with his responses.) The disgruntled people in that category can't be appeased. Don't waste your time trying to do so. You can identify them by their classless rudeness. 

 

My inclination is that the more people who join the discussion with different perspectives elevate the discussion. Some people see it differently. 

 

One of the strange things in this thread is that one of the highest expressions of "disgruntlement" came from a guy who is normally one of the most long-tempered and reasoned contributors here.  Go figgur.

 

I'm also at "more people, the merrier" so long as they (minimally) behave

Edited February 4, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks.

 

 

Appreciate it.  As DBF said, " thread title:  Buffalo News: - Tyrod Taylor on goal line pass in Jacksonville *Subscription Required*" = problem solved.  Add in a quote and a few lines of summary/discussion and it's clear the goal of the post is to contribute to discussion in the community.

 

To the bolded, say rather, "the writing approach specific members of your staff have developed over the years" (and the editorial approach that has fostered and enabled that instead of saying - hmmm, I think you need to dig a bit more on that).  I have nothing personal at all about Mr Sullivan and Mr Gleason, they may be fine upstanding guys.  I can also remember when they were well worth reading.   BBFS (Buffalo Bills Fan Syndrome) impacts us all.

 

One of the strange things in this thread is that one of the highest expressions of "disgruntlement" came from a guy who is normally one of the most long-tempered and reasoned contributors here.  Go figgur.

 

I'm also at "more people, the merrier" so long as they (minimally) behave

There is a hardcore segment to this population that have strong feelings toward the BN and some of its writers. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinions. But this broad brush criticism that colors any negative or critical reporting coming from the BN is out of proportion to what is being written. If there is so much disregard for what is being said from this particular source then the solution is simple: Don't read or respond to it. 

 

There is no need to require a poster from the BN to indicate that a subscription is required because it is well known that the sports section is a subscription only service. If it is not known it will become evident once one clicks on to that link. This forum has had contributors from the BN and other sources participate in this forum. All of them left because of the ill-tempered responses from a faction of the people here. That's a shame. 

[transplantbillsfan]

On 2/2/2018 at 9:27 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

He's saying, to anyone who knows anything about football, that it was a run/pass call depending on how the defense set up. All defenses would have basically done what Jax did against the Bills. Tyrod's read, depending on the setup of the defense was the pass to KB. It wasn't a choice of pass or run. If the D does A you pass, if the D does B you run. But every D was going to do A, which was load the box.

 

That's why he said if you want to run call a run. It wasnt really an option.

 

Tyrod was being Tyrod. He was saying it was a terrible call without throwing anyone specific under the bus.

 

Yeah, that's you, Dennison, on the unemployment line.  

 

Yeah that was a serious indictment of Dennison. I actually thought that was Tyrod throwing Dennison under the bus more than I would have expected from him. It kinda surprised me and you can tell Taylor wasn't happy with the call and feels the blame he's shouldered since has been unwarranted.

 

 I think it's interesting how direct he is here... I wonder if he had a conversation about it with McDermott and felt validated.

 

Oh Dennison... if only  

[Kelly the Dog]

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah that was a serious indictment of Dennison. I actually thought that was Tyrod throwing Dennison under the bus more than I would have expected from him. It kinda surprised me and you can tell Taylor wasn't happy with the call and feels the blame he's shouldered since has been unwarranted.

 

 I think it's interesting how direct he is here... I wonder if he had a conversation about it with McDermott and felt validated.

 

Oh Dennison... if only  

I really don't know what McD thinks about Tyrod. He's probably torn like a lot of us are. I would bet money that he likes Tyrod more than people here think he does, if only because he puts way more weight on the man, model, leader, off the field stuff than all of us do. Plus he knows that we didn't give him much help. I'm also sure he wanted Tyrod to play a lot better and not leave so many plays on the field.

 

For me, Tyrod is a lot like Fred Jackson as far as a person goes. Not the player. Fred was an awesome, awesome Bill and role model and worker, but he often felt disrespected by the team and hated the front office at times for how he was treated and disrespected. He didn't let it out in his public statements because he was being diplomatic. But he was pissed more than once at the Bills, particularly when they lowballed him on his second or third contract and had him under a barrel.

 

Tyrod was rightfully furious over the benching but was, like Fred, never going to come out in public. He was probably pissed at McDermott for ALLOWING Dennison to talk him into playing Peterman. He was probably (I don't have any knowledge of this one) livid over the Sammy trade, Gilislee thing, and the options he had on ffense. He was also not happy about taking a pay cut last year but hey, he signed it, he knows it's a business, he could have demanded to be released or asked for a trade and played elsewhere. So he's got a chip on his shoulder for sure. I know he wants to stay. I doubt it happens but it might.

 

And to everyone here, please don't respond to this post with he sucks. We all know he sucks and that you suck worse.

[transplantbillsfan]

On 2/3/2018 at 4:48 AM, JaCrispy said:

Hahaha so Tyrod admitted he expected Shady to be able to get the one yard for the TD, but because it was HIS option, he throws it anyway- with a pass he doesn’t normally throw well, to begin with?!? What an idiot...this guy’s QB IQ is lower than Preston Brown’s. 

 

But as KTD put so well on page 1, RPOs are primarily dependent on the look you're getting from the snap.

 

KB was one-on-one and the line was stacked against the run. Based on the  play call by Dennison, the decision to pass was probably the right call. The main issue is that it should have just been a called run by Dennison.

 

That was just the final nail in the coffin for Dennison as Buffalo's OC.

Edited February 4, 2018 by transplantbillsfan
No clue why I put McDermott rather than Dennison.

[Shaw66]

16 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

FWIW, I think it may have been well intentioned and just thoughtless.  

I was thanked for my PM suggesting in future, indicate that the article requires a subscription, and provide a few sentences summary and a quote.

 

Once is a occurance.  If it becomes a pattern, then your diagnosis will gain cred.

 

I don't think it will, but I've been wrong before.

Agreed. I thought this WAS NOT the first time.  

 

Bottom line - if he wants to post news, post it.   If he wants to talk about the Bills, then state an opinion.  

[BringBackOrton]

8 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I really don't know what McD thinks about Tyrod. He's probably torn like a lot of us are. I would bet money that he likes Tyrod more than people here think he does, if only because he puts way more weight on the man, model, leader, off the field stuff than all of us do. Plus he knows that we didn't give him much help. I'm also sure he wanted Tyrod to play a lot better and not leave so many plays on the field.

 

For me, Tyrod is a lot like Fred Jackson as far as a person goes. Not the player. Fred was an awesome, awesome Bill and role model and worker, but he often felt disrespected by the team and hated the front office at times for how he was treated and disrespected. He didn't let it out in his public statements because he was being diplomatic. But he was pissed more than once at the Bills, particularly when they lowballed him on his second or third contract and had him under a barrel.

 

Tyrod was rightfully furious over the benching but was, like Fred, never going to come out in public. He was probably pissed at McDermott for ALLOWING Dennison to talk him into playing Peterman. He was probably (I don't have any knowledge of this one) livid over the Sammy trade, Gilislee thing, and the options he had on ffense. He was also not happy about taking a pay cut last year but hey, he signed it, he knows it's a business, he could have demanded to be released or asked for a trade and played elsewhere. So he's got a chip on his shoulder for sure. I know he wants to stay. I doubt it happens but it might.

 

And to everyone here, please don't respond to this post with he sucks. We all know he sucks and that you suck worse.

We agree on something!

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

But as KTD put so well on page 1, RPOs are primarily dependent on the look you're getting from the snap.

 

KB was one-on-one and the line was stacked against the run. Based on the  play call by Dennison, the decision to pass was probably the right call. The main issue is that it should have just been a called run by McDermott.

 

That was just the final nail in the coffin for Dennison as Buffalo's OC.

Talk about hindsight.  We couldn't run at all during the game, Eric Wood was hurt, but we should have called the play that required our OL to manhandle Dareus and co at the LOS?

[Kelly the Dog]

3 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

We agree on something!

 

As soon as I posted that I wrote a list of twenty asswipes that would ignore my simple request and immediately say something stupid, thinking it was funny. You were number two and three.

[Foreigner]

A lot of nastiness on this board, just like on social media, and just like life.

You complain about a TV program, change the channel.

Complain about a newspaper, don't read it,

and to complain about $2.99 for a full month, for the entire newspaper I believe, makes no sense.

 

As for the play and KB, he was damaged goods when he came here. Carolina duped the Bills,

and the play was a push off, end of story.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

10 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

 

Talk about hindsight.  We couldn't run at all during the game, Eric Wood was hurt, but we should have called the play that required our OL to manhandle Dareus and co at the LOS?

We had just gone 70 yards to get to the one, the majority on the ground.

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, JoshBarnett said:

My goal was to let the people here know there was more significant news in the interview than just the original item.

Different people seem to be objecting to what you did for different reasons.  This sentence is at the core of my objection. 

 

I come here for two reasons:  to share news about the Bills and to discuss the Bills.  I think that's why everyone is here.  Except you.  You admit that the reason you're here is to get people to look at what your organization has produced. You're not here to share information. You're here to sell it. 

 

You try to make it sound like you're doing a public service.  And in fact if I subscribed to BN and I posted the same thing you did it would be fine. That would be mw, a member of this community, sharing information others might be interested in.  But you aren't a member, at leastnnot in spirit.  You don't come here to share information or to talk about the Bills,noun aren't a participant.  It's clear you're here to sell subscriptions.

 

Now I have to admit, it sounds like you got a lot of great stuff from Tyrod and maybe I ought subscribe.  I give you credit for that.  

 

But as others have said, if youre going to come here and link too to contest that requires paymeet to see it, then telll people in the title of the thread that you're liking to paid material. 

 

Better yet, why don't you get your IT people to post some of the material, like say the discussion of the thrown to Benjamin, to a special free link?Then come here and post about THAT, giving people the free link.  Then tell us if we want to see the rest we have to sign up. In other words, actually share some of what you've produced. 

[BringBackOrton]

14 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

As soon as I posted that I wrote a list of twenty asswipes that would ignore my simple request and immediately say something stupid, thinking it was funny. You were number two and three.

Wow, sounds like you got a lot of free time on your hands.  Did the supermarket not need their groceries bagged today?

8 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

We had just gone 70 yards to get to the one, the majority on the ground.

That's true, but even so, I don't feel like we ran the ball effectively at all that day.

 

Without the PI, this is a non-issue.  KB's greatest asset is his size.  He was born for jump balls in single coverage in the RZ.  If the ball is bad, which it was, 2nd and goal at the one.  Which is fine.

Edited February 4, 2018 by jmc12290

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, JoshBarnett said:

 

 

After messaging with Hap, I realize the proper etiquette is to include a brief summary and a quote so people can discuss the article without reading it, which often happens from other sources. 

Exactly. Your post should either contain enough information to start a discussion or add to an existing discussion, or it should link to a free source so that people can get information.  It shouldn't just say "I've got some great information for you. Come over and buy it."

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

 

 

There is no need to require a poster from the BN to indicate that a subscription is required because it is well known that the sports section is a subscription only service. If it is not known it will become evident once one clicks on to that link. This forum has had contributors from the BN and other sources participate in this forum. All of them left because of the ill-tempered responses from a faction of the people here. That's a shame. 

For me it's the thread title.  I don't look at every thread.  This thread title syasnits offerng information about a play I was interested.  In fact it offered no information. And once I read the OP, I thought that perhaps this link to BN WAS free, so I tried it.  

 

So I wasted my time and as Josh apparently now understands, that's bad forum etiquette.  Either the title should be clear or the OP should do contain enough information to make it a useful post on its own without the link. 

[Mango]

5 hours ago, JoshBarnett said:

 

That is actually not what happened here in my view. We did a staggered story off one interview at intervals. We wrote six paragraphs as soon as the interview was over about the pay cut issue. That was the top of the story and we published. There was nothing wrong with the teaser and that fueled the one discussion that seems to be ongoing here. No issue at all. It was going fine. 

 

We then came back and wrote a more in-depth version that talked about the Jax play, the playoffs, Dennison and Daboll about an hour later. We also wrote a separate story just about the Jax play about three hours later. My goal was to let the people here know there was more significant news in the interview than just the original item. I thought what he said was interesting and wanted to share it so I linked to the full story. 

 

At the time, we published the extended version, the first item already had a lot of discussion. I thought the other news would get lost if I threw it in there. Having been on this board, I often find interesting things buried when the topic veers from the original point. 

 

After messaging with Hap, I realize the proper etiquette is to include a brief summary and a quote so people can discuss the article without reading it, which often happens from other sources. 

 

I also would quibble  with your definition of click bait. To me, click bait suggests that the headline or teaser doesn't reflect what is in the story. That is not the case here or in the Tyrod story or the Eric Wood piece, in my opinion. In the previous instances, we were dealing with more nuanced subjects that have context that can't be fully captured in a teaser and conclusions were being drawn that might not have been drawn had the full article been available so I addressed that for the benefit of the subjects and my staff.

 

Despite your assertion, for the record, I don't view anything wrong with the tweets that were sent in either instance. My response in those instances has nothing to do with the tweets. We always can be better at everything we do but that was not my issue in those cases.

 

In the previous Tyrod story, he talked extensively about many subjects. We tweeted several pieces of the interview but some took it as a massive story all about race. That is why I came on here to explain. As Hap can attest after he read the full Wood story, there is more there than the one tweet that he seized upon. We also sent multiple tweets on that piece that focused on different facets. That again is why I came on here. In this case, there is a full story that was written after the discussion already started about new items so this has nothing to do with any tweets at all. 

 

I have had wonderful interactions with many Bills fans since I've been in town, including lots of emails and messages from people on this board. I've also had a few people tell me that I am not welcome in your community that exists here. I have acknowledged more than once that I understand that many people don't like my staff, don't like the subscription model and other topics. I have tried to be available to address concerns people have. I have worked in other NFL markets and for a national outlet, and taken that same approach. The customer isn't always right but you are always the customer and I respect that and will continue to do so. 

 

Thanks, Josh 

 

Although I don’t like Sully and Bucky, my issue with not paying is not them in particular. It’s the idea that there is very little meaningful Bills content. People like Vic because he’s a Buffalo guy and the voice of the Bills. People like Sully and Bucky because they are what’s always been available. But even the articles posted provide very little to the conversation that didn’t exist before. 

 

Romo called it an option about 10 seconds after the play. Cover 1 broke down the play. We knew that. A month later an entire article on Tyrod feelings is being dealt as more meaningful journalism. 

 

For a city that’s incredibly rabid about their football team, it is odd that the BN hasn’t invested heavily in their staff at a very high level. Even you agnowledge the fact you hear about people’s unhappiness regarding the issue I would believe that the people paying and reading Sully and Bucky, are paying and reading regardless. They are BN sports lifers. But there is a huge opportunity to acquire new customers based on quality of the product regarding football specifically. Surely the BN has metrics on this right? 

 

Very few publications have a hard paywall. The move nationally is a soft paywall, purposefully taking it as an opportunity to acquire customers by proving their worth. I pay for the NYT. I’m not anti-pay for good content. 

 

I don't find it as shameful as other posters, but it’s a bit uncouth for the sports editor to come in and link their own paid content. 

 

Thanks for being around and listening. It’s appreciated. I’m sure the rest of the complainers, like myself on this issue, appreciate your overall presence. We’ll see if it results in any meaningful change. 

[Kelly the Dog]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Different people seem to be objecting to what you did for different reasons.  This sentence is at the core of my objection. 

 

I come here for two reasons:  to share news about the Bills and to discuss the Bills.  I think that's why everyone is here.  Except you.  You admit that the reason you're here is to get people to look at what your organization has produced. You're not here to share information. You're here to sell it. 

 

You try to make it sound like you're doing a public service.  And in fact if I subscribed to BN and I posted the same thing you did it would be fine. That would be mw, a member of this community, sharing information others might be interested in.  But you aren't a member, at leastnnot in spirit.  You don't come here to share information or to talk about the Bills,noun aren't a participant.  It's clear you're here to sell subscriptions.

 

Now I have to admit, it sounds like you got a lot of great stuff from Tyrod and maybe I ought subscribe.  I give you credit for that.  

 

But as others have said, if youre going to come here and link too to contest that requires paymeet to see it, then telll people in the title of the thread that you're liking to paid material. 

 

Better yet, why don't you get your IT people to post some of the material, like say the discussion of the thrown to Benjamin, to a special free link?Then come here and post about THAT, giving people the free link.  Then tell us if we want to see the rest we have to sign up. In other words, actually share some of what you've produced. 

Shaw, a lot of people are here for different reasons other than just to share news and discuss the Bills. A huge number rarely if ever share news or discuss the Bills. Just because that is your sole reason, and a valid, perhaps the most valid reason, doesn't mean everyone has to follow that model.

 

In fact, if the editors from the R&C and the NYT and ESPN and NFL Network and Roger Goodell were coming here (and yes, Roger, I know you are here), and posting as much as Josh is - meaning once in awhile and not trying to take over or change the board in any fashion, it would be a better place. Different, but better. In my opinion. You may not agree. But there are not only two reasons for being here; yours.

[Foreigner]

This is a democracy and a Capitalistic country.

The business of the country is business or making money. It is why everything works

in the U.S.A. Stop complaining and harassing the man. He came to explain.

Without Bills news in the BN, there would be so many more empty seats, which would

mean not enough money to pay everyone in the organization, and the Bills would be gone.

Why complain here, go to Facebook and Twitter with complaints, that's what they are

there for besides to make money, just like the BN wants to make money, just like the

Bills want to make money, just like you want to make money. 

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

 

 

Without the PI, this is a non-issue.  KB's greatest asset is his size.  He was born for jump balls in single coverage in the RZ.  If the ball is bad, which it was, 2nd and goal at the one.  Which is fine.

Watch the replay. The pass wasn't bad. Hit him in the hands, high, where it's supposed to be for Benjamin. The problem was that that when Benjamin was interfering with the defender he should already have begun to turn for the ball.  If he'd done that he could have boxed out the defender and made the catch.  All on Benjamin. 

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

Although I don’t like Sully and Bucky, my issue with not paying is not them in particular. It’s the idea that there is very little meaningful Bills content. People like Vic because he’s a Buffalo guy and the voice of the Bills. People like Sully and Bucky because they are what’s always been available. But even the articles posted provide very little to the conversation that didn’t exist before. 

 

Romo called it an option about 10 seconds after the play. Cover 1 broke down the play. We knew that. A month later an entire article on Tyrod feelings is being dealt as more meaningful journalism. 

 

For a city that’s incredibly rabid about their football team, it is odd that the BN hasn’t invested heavily in their staff at a very high level. Even you agnowledge the fact you hear about people’s unhappiness regarding the issue I would believe that the people paying and reading Sully and Bucky, are paying and reading regardless. They are BN sports lifers. But there is a huge opportunity to acquire new customers based on quality of the product regarding football specifically. Surely the BN has metrics on this right? 

 

Very few publications have a hard paywall. The move nationally is a soft paywall, purposefully taking it as an opportunity to acquire customers by proving their worth. I pay for the NYT. I’m not anti-pay for good content. 

 

I don't find it as shameful as other posters, but it’s a bit uncouth for the sports editor to come in and link their own paid content. 

 

Thanks for being around and listening. It’s appreciated. I’m sure the rest of the complainers, like myself on this issue, appreciate your overall presence. We’ll see if it results in any meaningful change. 

Then you don't know what is on there. Mark Gaughn breaks down video like Cover 1. Both do a very good job. There is all kinds of information there, not just Sully and Bucky, who comprise perhaps 5% of the content, if that.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Kelly the Dog

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Shaw, a lot of people are here for different reasons other than just to share news and discuss the Bills. A huge number rarely if ever share news or discuss the Bills. Just because that is your sole reason, and a valid, perhaps the most valid reason, doesn't mean everyone has to follow that model.

 

In fact, if the editors from the R&C and the NYT and ESPN and NFL Network and Roger Goodell were coming here (and yes, Roger, I know you are here), and posting as much as Josh is - meaning once in awhile and not trying to take over or change the board in any fashion, it would be a better place. Different, but better. In my opinion. You may not agree. But there are not only two reasons for being here; yours.

Why else are people here?  If they post they do one of those two things - share information or discuss. What else do they do?

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Why else are people here?  If they post they do one of those two things - share information or discuss. What else do they do?

A lot just joke with other posters, discuss other topics on Off The Wall, just read and never participate, some just B word (those are my faves!), discuss problems/issues/trends with the NFL or TV (not Bills related).

 

I understand where you are coming from, I do. That's why I said your two stated reasons were probably the most valid. And I'm against just shamelessly shilling for products here, even if it is Bills related. But I don't think that is what he is doing. And not everything is, must be, or should be, discussion directly on the Bills for purist purposes. If you break it down, there isn't all that much of that. Surely less than half.

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

A lot just joke with other posters, discuss other topics on Off The Wall, just read and never participate, some just B word (those are my faves!), discuss problems/issues/trends with the NFL or TV (not Bills related).

 

I understand where you are coming from, I do. That's why I said your two stated reasons were probably the most valid. And I'm against just shamelessly shilling for products here, even if it is Bills related. But I don't think that is what he is doing. And not everything is, must be, or should be, discussion directly on the Bills for purist purposes. If you break it down, there isn't all that much of that. Surely less than half.

Got you. Thanks. 

 

I'm only talking about this forum.  

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Got you. Thanks. 

 

I'm only talking about this forum.  

Cool. But I mean on this forum. You take any thread of 100 responses and less than half of them will be purist, serious discussion on the thread premise or Bills, especially if you count posts that are just 100% repetitions of a point just made. And that's fine. Preferred in fact. The entertainment on this board is at least as good or better than the Bills content and discussion. 

[3rdand12]

16 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Watch the replay. The pass wasn't bad. Hit him in the hands, high, where it's supposed to be for Benjamin. The problem was that that when Benjamin was interfering with the defender he should already have begun to turn for the ball.  If he'd done that he could have boxed out the defender and made the catch.  All on Benjamin. 

exactly. it is on KB. either he was thinking run or not sure where his spot should have been.
get that head turned sooner Benjamin, its the goal line where split seconds and  one yard can make all the difference in a game

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah that was a serious indictment of Dennison. I actually thought that was Tyrod throwing Dennison under the bus more than I would have expected from him. It kinda surprised me and you can tell Taylor wasn't happy with the call and feels the blame he's shouldered since has been unwarranted.

 

 I think it's interesting how direct he is here... I wonder if he had a conversation about it with McDermott and felt validated.

 

Oh Dennison... if only  

 

 

Personally,   I think too much was made of that call.

 

The refs had just accidentally given the Bills a first down........the Jags player had gotten back onside on the FG attempt.

 

So.......as refs often do........they threw a make-up flag.

 

Had the Bills run the ball on that play they were going to get a holding call.

 

Dennison made plenty of bad calls.........he EARNED his firing...........but pounding McCoy at the goal line is no sure thing either.    That's why he had not been used in most short yardage situations from 2014-2016.

 

The issue is the people blaming Tyrod for doing what the play called for.........10 in the box......man coverage on your giant #1 WR.......the correct read was a throw to KB and Taylor put it on his hands and he couldn't catch it.   

 

It's reminiscent of the blame put on Tyrod for Zay Jones stumbling and botching his route on the ill-fated play at the end of the Panthers game.    TT threw the ball where Jones should have been at that time in the designed route.    The players acknowledged as much.......and yet the idiots persisted to blame TT.

 

TT is a flawed player but the depths of exaggeration that his haters go to to discredit him are embarrassing for the board.    It makes the board IQ look very low which is unfortunate.

[Manther]

On 2018-02-03 at 9:31 AM, billsbackto81 said:

It was a terrible call! That drive was over 5 minutes up to that point and Buffalo was running the ball very well  regardless of what the Jax D was doing. YOU RUN THE BALL!!

 

Jax D was on fumes and deflated from an offside penalty that cost them.  1st and GOAL. Running well all drive. I don't care if 10 are in the box, RUN THE BALL!

Agreed!  Classic over coached in the situation.

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Shaw, a lot of people are here for different reasons other than just to share news and discuss the Bills. A huge number rarely if ever share news or discuss the Bills. Just because that is your sole reason, and a valid, perhaps the most valid reason, doesn't mean everyone has to follow that model.

 

In fact, if the editors from the R&C and the NYT and ESPN and NFL Network and Roger Goodell were coming here (and yes, Roger, I know you are here), and posting as much as Josh is - meaning once in awhile and not trying to take over or change the board in any fashion, it would be a better place. Different, but better. In my opinion. You may not agree. But there are not only two reasons for being here; yours.

You more deftly stated what I have wanted to state in my posts on this topic. Some posters are responding to me as if I am haranguing them on how they responded to Josh. That's not my intention. I've observed that for a segment of posters (not generalizing to a wider group) any subject matter related to the BN stimulates a reflexive hostile response. My position is that because he is a representative of the BN and because he doesn't regularly post here there should have been more forbearance toward him. (You also smarly noted that because of his limited participation here that there was no intention to hijack or redirect this forum.)

 

We have had people from a variety of media organizations participate here. Invariably, a hostile faction use their energy to hostilely  engage instead of civilly engage. The predictable result is that the outside source leaves the scene. The end result is that this platform ends up losing useful sources and perspectives. Instead of calling out the guest contributor for technical violations of protocol he should have been given more latitude. 

[BringBackOrton]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Personally,   I think too much was made of that call.

 

The refs had just accidentally given the Bills a first down........the Jags player had gotten back onside on the FG attempt.

 

So.......as refs often do........they threw a make-up flag.

 

Had the Bills run the ball on that play they were going to get a holding call.

 

Dennison made plenty of bad calls.........he EARNED his firing...........but pounding McCoy at the goal line is no sure thing either.    That's why he had not been used in most short yardage situations from 2014-2016.

 

The issue is the people blaming Tyrod for doing what the play called for.........10 in the box......man coverage on your giant #1 WR.......the correct read was a throw to KB and Taylor put it on his hands and he couldn't catch it.   

 

It's reminiscent of the blame put on Tyrod for Zay Jones stumbling and botching his route on the ill-fated play at the end of the Panthers game.    TT threw the ball where Jones should have been at that time in the designed route.    The players acknowledged as much.......and yet the idiots persisted to blame TT.

 

TT is a flawed player but the depths of exaggeration that his haters go to to discredit him are embarrassing for the board.    It makes the board IQ look very low which is unfortunate.

Thank you!

 

Objectivity.

 

I actually don't see a lot of blame for TT on that goalline throw around here.  It's a contested throw to a covered player and it's low percentage as all hell.

Edited February 4, 2018 by jmc12290

[Foreigner]

Finally, from Badolbilz and J clarity and good sense.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Better yet, why don't you get your IT people to post some of the material, like say the discussion of the thrown to Benjamin, to a special free link?Then come here and post about THAT, giving people the free link.  Then tell us if we want to see the rest we have to sign up. In other words, actually share some of what you've produced. 

 

To Josh: there might be 100 reasons why that's complicated to do, or shouldn't be done.

 

But IMHO this from Shaw66 is actually a great idea - give a periodic taste of what's behind the paywall

 

As long as it's up front what you're doing - giving a free sample to assess the quality of a product available for a fee is an honored American tradition.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:

Talk about hindsight.  We couldn't run at all during the game, Eric Wood was hurt, but we should have called the play that required our OL to manhandle Dareus and co at the LOS?

 

On a drive that, at the point of that play call, had already eaten up 7 minutes of clock and where our RBs were relatively effective averaging 4+ YPC against that vaunted defense and we were on the 1 yard line...?

 

Yes. You run on 1st down.

 

Run on 1st down in that situation is NEVER a bad call whereas passing on 1st down there absolutely can be, as it was.

On 2/3/2018 at 4:31 AM, billsbackto81 said:

It was a terrible call! That drive was over 5 minutes up to that point and Buffalo was running the ball very well  regardless of what the Jax D was doing. YOU RUN THE BALL!!

 

Jax D was on fumes and deflated from an offside penalty that cost them.  1st and GOAL. Running well all drive. I don't care if 10 are in the box, RUN THE BALL!

 

Who do you blame? Tyrod or Dennison it was a terrible call and cost us the game potentially.

 

Actually that drive was over 7 minutes up to that point  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

58 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Personally,   I think too much was made of that call.

The refs had just accidentally given the Bills a first down........the Jags player had gotten back onside on the FG attempt.

So.......as refs often do........they threw a make-up flag.

Had the Bills run the ball on that play they were going to get a holding call.

 

I don't have all-22 this year and can't convince myself of that 100% from the film clips available online.  Can someone else confirm this interpretation? (Edit: I mean that the Jags player clearly got 100% back before the snap)

 

IMO, the push-off from Benjamin was pretty clear, I recall Romo even coaching him in real time on the play-by-play saying "Benjamin, you got to push off low, if you push off up at the facemask or pads level it's easy to spot and they'll flag it every time.  Was there an element of "make up call" in an infraction they might otherwise overlook, perhaps, but it was a pretty obvious push-off up at neck level and right in front of the ref.

 

If a run play had a flagrant hold right in front of the ref sure holding on something they might otherwise let slide, but I don't see the refs making a "phantom call" on either as sometimes happens.   Neither the Jags nor Bills are in the category of teams that get those.

 

Quote

Dennison made plenty of bad calls.........he EARNED his firing...........but pounding McCoy at the goal line is no sure thing either.    That's why he had not been used in most short yardage situations from 2014-2016.

 

You're right, but you know what else is sickening?  We have two freakin' FBs, not one FB but two, on the @#$! roster and we're talking about our finesse back, Mr "Cut on Dime", as the one to pound at the goal line.  WTF man? (to McDermott)

 

Quote

 

The issue is the people blaming Tyrod for doing what the play called for.........10 in the box......man coverage on your giant #1 WR.......the correct read was a throw to KB and Taylor put it on his hands and he couldn't catch it.   

 

It's reminiscent of the blame put on Tyrod for Zay Jones stumbling and botching his route on the ill-fated play at the end of the Panthers game.    TT threw the ball where Jones should have been at that time in the designed route.    The players acknowledged as much.......and yet the idiots persisted to blame TT.

 

TT is a flawed player but the depths of exaggeration that his haters go to to discredit him are embarrassing for the board.    It makes the board IQ look very low which is unfortunate.

 

It's a stretch to say Taylor put it on KB's hands - but KB did not put on much of a vertical leap for a ball no further over his head than many he has caught, and it did touch his hands.  Either he couldn't put on a vertical leap, because knee, or ??  (Compare and contrast with Diggs leap in the Eagles Vikes, for example)

 

About the depths of exaggeration, you're right on.  Just as we're so bereft of quality QB play that we go nuts over 5th round rookie backups, it's been so long since we've seen championship-caliber WR play that we no longer expect our WR to make grabs players on other teams regularly haul in - both the Jones catch and the KB play fall into that category.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan