Looks like Jerry Sullivan is at it again...

[Guest wisdom]

The true killers of a myth are unassailable facts. Donahoe has never proved he has the ability to produce a true winner. It's just a fact. Go back and grade his personnel moves in an "objective" way if possible. He is average. Go back and grade his teams over the years. Below average. Don't expect grape juice to become champagne by the power of wishful thinking.

 

All the cheerleaders who put their hearts in front of their heads will always refuse to look at the facts when they contradict their little dream world.

 

Many posters here live in a little fantasy world where the Bills are supreme and everyone else knows nothing. Grow up and get in touch with reality.

 

How many pathetic fantasy league losers would draft Bledsoe ahead of Brady, Pennington,Culpepper,Manning,McNair,McNabb,Green,etc. Sadly, I predict there are probably many posters here who would make the case for Bledsoe over Manning. Reality bites.

 

Don't blame the messengers.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

"Dazzled on draft day"... I have always felt that he continues to try to garner attention for his creative moves... more so than filling holes

"Starting 4th year, time to judge on merit"... I can appreciate a couple of rebuilding years, but not to go backwards in the 3rd year

"Keen judge of coaching talent. yet hired Gregg Williams"... his biggest error

"Run orientated GM has allowed OL to fall into dispepair"...tough to argue with after last year. I love the line coach hire, but even he can't fix the mess due to a lack of talent

His comments on McGahee instead of a lineman... right now, I would prefer a stud center or guard

His Gregg Williams lame duck comment... that helped kill last year

Last paragraph... not having the personnel... I agree, again soley due to the lack of building an offensive line

 

I would appreciate your input, because I truly agree with Sullivan and would like to see why my judgement is flawed.. To other posters, just because a writer produces a negative article... it does not mean he is wrong. I am a devout fan but am willing to hear all opinions.

23471[/snapback]

 

 

 

Bill,

 

Since you sound like you really want a response to your questions, I will give you one that addresses at least part of the problem I have with Sullivan. Virtually every statement he makes is based solely on hindsight. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that; we all make such judgments. Where it becomes a problem is when one dresses up an argument based on hindsight by pretending that the alternative solution was obvious at the time when that is simply not so. To give four examples:

 

1. On TD's reputation: To hear Sullivan say it, with TD's 30-50 overall record the past five years, even hiring him to begin with was a mistake. That statement completely ignores the reality of late 2000, when the Bills were in disarray and needed an experienced football mind. Every single knowledgable football person, including Jerry Sullivan, thought that TD was the right guy for the job. In fact, when more than a week went by after the end of the season without an announcement that TD had been hired, Larry Felser wrote a column basically saying that if Ralph did not hire him immediately, it was proof that the Bills were DOOOOMED.

 

2. On the Mike Williams vs. Bryany McKinnie pick: Sullivan acts as though McKinnie was clearly and always the obvious better choice. That was not true at the time--intelligent football people disagreed then--and it is still not clear. When you add to this the fact that McK went on to hold out for 11 weeks, thereby shitcanning his entire rookie season, we should all remember that Big Mike was looking like a good choice. Now things look different, but that does not mean that everything is decided. Ask me at the end of this season what I think of Mike williams, and I think it will be possible to make a definitive statement.

 

3. On the OL. This is related to the point above and to the Steinbach/McGahee question. It is disappointing to see the state of our OL last year, even if I am optimistic about the future. But to say TD has done nothing for the OL is incorrect. He drafted a tackle with a first-round pick, he acquired a center through free agency, he drafted several other linemen in the rounds where most NFL linemen are found.

 

4. On hiring Gregg Williams. This has been said already, but bears repeating: Marvin Lewis WAS the Bills' first choice and he spurned the offer. That was known then, and to pretend that it was not true is at best disingenuous. John Fox, as it turns out, would have been the better choice. But at the time no one could have predicted it. No one. I repeat, no one. Anyone who says today that he or she knew in February 2001 which of the two very successful defensive coordinators was going to be the better NFL coach is lying. There may have been different opinions, but that's all they were.

 

 

I could go on, but if I did you might all think that I was merely channeling Barry Brady. (Ooops, I mean Fake-Fat Sunny... ) My overall point is that it is perfectly fine to say that the Bills have not done as well as we would have liked under TD so far. It is, however, false to assume that this is due to choices he made that were obviously wrong at the time is incorrect. I have posted this thought before on the board, but since no one read it then (I know, waaaaaaa, another person complaining about being ignored) I will repeat it: Selecting players and building a team in any sport is a product of both skill and luck. Jimmy Johnson looked like a genius when he had Aikman (whom he drafted, but also showed lack of faith in when he drafted Steve Walsh the same year), E. Smith, and Ervin; the same Jimmy Johnson looked rather less genius-like when he had Huard, L. Smith, and Gadsen. Bill Parcells has had great success, but his last Super Bowl appearance was in January 1997. Success is not automatic. By all means, judge TD by how well the Bills do, but let's not pretend that he was always wrong and ignored obvious alternatives.

 

As my German friends say: Man ist immer nacher klüger. (One is always smarter afterwards). But hindsight is cheap compared with the challenge of making decisions for which one is responsible.

 

Go Bills!

[Guest Guest_Toledo Bill_*]

He's entitled to his opinion. It seems he has regurgitated this exact same article every 2 months for the last year. I guess if you repeat it enough, many of the brain dead lemmings will decide it is fact, rather than thinking for themselves.

 

With the NFL Ticket, even the out of town fans who never come with a thousand miles of Orchard Park can watch the Bills and see for themselves what our team is all about. Many of the locals, like myself, get see them even more in practices and scrimmages.

 

In short, we watch the Bills far more often than Sullivan and that gives us a solid foundation to form our own, objective outlook of this team.

 

I'm well aware hiring GW was a mistake. The 17-31 record. Blah,blah,blah... Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't display any great wisdom. TD is under pressure. Really ? No kidding. ..."TD is not a genius".. Who said he was ?... Some callers on WGR or a couple letter writers in the Sunday paper ? So what ? They're fans, full of biased opinions, much like Sullivan himself.

 

The whole article stinks of an agenda with revenge in mind. No balance whatsoever. 

 

I wish to read something better than this drivel. It resembles something spoken by a bitter obnoxious drunk at the local saloon.

 

You have eyes. Think for youself.

23504[/snapback]

 

That is exactly what I am doing. I can't help that I have agreed with these premises well before the article. Why don't you think for yourself and not crucify someone who happens to not expound unearned optimism. Brain dead lemmings... excuse me, I have attended Bills games since the days of the rockpile and can assure you that I am not lacking in original thinking. Someone is brain deads because you disagree with their opinion... I would reverse the terminology towards someone with your type of thinking.

[Guest Guest]

The problem is that what Sullivan points out as "obvious" is only obvious to idiots like yourself. Sullivan is about equal with Chuck Dickerson when it comes to being an idiot, but at least Dickerson knew a bit about football.

 

Sullivan makes broad, sweeping statements and editorializes based on half-truths and piss-poor "statistics" that only a buttmunch would take as truth.

23515[/snapback]

I have always enjoyed your posts and it's too bad you think of me as an idiot. I cannot believe how defensive fans are about a negative article that makes some valid points. I rarely post, yet felt strongly enough about this topic to comment. Sorry that I take a stance different from yours.

[Guest Guest_Toledo Bill_*]

Bill,

 

Since you sound like you really want a response to your questions, I will give you one that addresses at least part of the problem I have with Sullivan. Virtually every statement he makes is based solely on hindsight. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that; we all make such judgments. Where it becomes a problem is when one dresses up an argument based on hindsight by pretending that the alternative solution was obvious at the time when that is simply not so. To give four examples:

 

1. On TD's reputation: To hear Sullivan say it, with TD's 30-50 overall record the past five years, even hiring him to begin with was a mistake. That statement completely ignores the reality of late 2000, when the Bills were in disarray and needed an experienced football mind. Every single knowledgable football person, including Jerry Sullivan, thought that TD was the right guy for the job. In fact, when more than a week went by after the end of the season without an announcement that TD had been hired, Larry Felser wrote a column basically saying that if Ralph did not hire him immediately, it was proof that the Bills were DOOOOMED.

 

Thank you for a well thought out response. I appreciate your input and you make several good points. Unlike some of the venom spewing "experts" that have commented on my thoughts I appreciate your taking the time to make a respectful, sense filled comment.

 

2. On the Mike Williams vs. Bryany McKinnie pick: Sullivan acts as though McKinnie was clearly and always the obvious better choice. That was not true at the time--intelligent football people disagreed then--and it is still not clear. When you add to this the fact that McK went on to hold out for 11 weeks, thereby shitcanning his entire rookie season, we should all remember that Big Mike was looking like a good choice. Now things look different, but that does not mean that everything is decided. Ask me at the end of this season what I think of Mike williams, and I think it will be possible to make a definitive statement.

 

3. On the OL. This is related to the point above and to the Steinbach/McGahee question. It is disappointing to see the state of our OL last year, even if I am optimistic about the future. But to say TD has done nothing for the OL is incorrect. He drafted a tackle with a first-round pick, he acquired a center through free agency, he drafted several other linemen in the rounds where most NFL linemen are found.

 

4. On hiring Gregg Williams.  This has been said already, but bears repeating: Marvin Lewis WAS the Bills' first choice and he spurned the offer. That was known then, and to pretend that it was not true is at best disingenuous. John Fox, as it turns out, would have been the better choice. But at the time no one could have predicted it. No one. I repeat, no one. Anyone who says today that he or she knew in February 2001 which of the two very successful defensive coordinators was going to be the better NFL coach is lying. There may have been different opinions, but that's all they were.

I could go on, but if I did you might all think that I was merely channeling Barry Brady. (Ooops, I mean Fake-Fat Sunny...  ) My overall point is that it is perfectly fine to say that the Bills have not done as well as we would have liked under TD so far. It is, however, false to assume that this is due to choices he made that were obviously wrong at the time is incorrect. I have posted this thought before on the board, but since no one read it then (I know, waaaaaaa, another person complaining about being ignored) I will repeat it: Selecting players and building a team in any sport is a product of both skill and luck. Jimmy Johnson looked like a genius when he had Aikman (whom he drafted, but also showed lack of faith in when he drafted Steve Walsh the same year), E. Smith, and Ervin; the same Jimmy Johnson looked rather less genius-like when he had Huard, L. Smith, and Gadsen.  Bill Parcells has had great success, but his last Super Bowl appearance was in January 1997. Success is not automatic. By all means, judge TD by how well the Bills do, but let's not pretend that he was always wrong and ignored obvious alternatives.

 

As my German friends say: Man ist immer nacher klüger. (One is always smarter afterwards). But hindsight is cheap compared with the challenge of making decisions for which one is responsible.

 

Go Bills!

23630[/snapback]

[Guest Guest_Toledo Bill_*]

Bill,

 

Since you sound like you really want a response to your questions, I will give you one that addresses at least part of the problem I have with Sullivan. Virtually every statement he makes is based solely on hindsight. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with that; we all make such judgments. Where it becomes a problem is when one dresses up an argument based on hindsight by pretending that the alternative solution was obvious at the time when that is simply not so. To give four examples:

 

1. On TD's reputation: To hear Sullivan say it, with TD's 30-50 overall record the past five years, even hiring him to begin with was a mistake. That statement completely ignores the reality of late 2000, when the Bills were in disarray and needed an experienced football mind. Every single knowledgable football person, including Jerry Sullivan, thought that TD was the right guy for the job. In fact, when more than a week went by after the end of the season without an announcement that TD had been hired, Larry Felser wrote a column basically saying that if Ralph did not hire him immediately, it was proof that the Bills were DOOOOMED.

 

Thank you for a well thought out response. I appreciate your input and you make several good points. Unlike some of the venom spewing "experts" that have commented on my thoughts I appreciate your taking the time to make a respectful, sense filled comment.

 

2. On the Mike Williams vs. Bryany McKinnie pick: Sullivan acts as though McKinnie was clearly and always the obvious better choice. That was not true at the time--intelligent football people disagreed then--and it is still not clear. When you add to this the fact that McK went on to hold out for 11 weeks, thereby shitcanning his entire rookie season, we should all remember that Big Mike was looking like a good choice. Now things look different, but that does not mean that everything is decided. Ask me at the end of this season what I think of Mike williams, and I think it will be possible to make a definitive statement.

 

3. On the OL. This is related to the point above and to the Steinbach/McGahee question. It is disappointing to see the state of our OL last year, even if I am optimistic about the future. But to say TD has done nothing for the OL is incorrect. He drafted a tackle with a first-round pick, he acquired a center through free agency, he drafted several other linemen in the rounds where most NFL linemen are found.

 

4. On hiring Gregg Williams.  This has been said already, but bears repeating: Marvin Lewis WAS the Bills' first choice and he spurned the offer. That was known then, and to pretend that it was not true is at best disingenuous. John Fox, as it turns out, would have been the better choice. But at the time no one could have predicted it. No one. I repeat, no one. Anyone who says today that he or she knew in February 2001 which of the two very successful defensive coordinators was going to be the better NFL coach is lying. There may have been different opinions, but that's all they were.

I could go on, but if I did you might all think that I was merely channeling Barry Brady. (Ooops, I mean Fake-Fat Sunny...  ) My overall point is that it is perfectly fine to say that the Bills have not done as well as we would have liked under TD so far. It is, however, false to assume that this is due to choices he made that were obviously wrong at the time is incorrect. I have posted this thought before on the board, but since no one read it then (I know, waaaaaaa, another person complaining about being ignored) I will repeat it: Selecting players and building a team in any sport is a product of both skill and luck. Jimmy Johnson looked like a genius when he had Aikman (whom he drafted, but also showed lack of faith in when he drafted Steve Walsh the same year), E. Smith, and Ervin; the same Jimmy Johnson looked rather less genius-like when he had Huard, L. Smith, and Gadsen.  Bill Parcells has had great success, but his last Super Bowl appearance was in January 1997. Success is not automatic. By all means, judge TD by how well the Bills do, but let's not pretend that he was always wrong and ignored obvious alternatives.

 

As my German friends say: Man ist immer nacher klüger. (One is always smarter afterwards). But hindsight is cheap compared with the challenge of making decisions for which one is responsible.

 

Thank you for a well thought out response. I appreciate your input and you make several good points. Unlike some of the venom spewing "experts" that have commented on my thoughts I appreciate your taking the time to make a respectful, sense filled comment.

 

Go Bills!

23630[/snapback]

[Guest Toleo Bill]

23669[/snapback]

Sorry RJ... I added my response to the bottom of your post. You can tell I am not a frequest poster. Thanks again

[todd]

I have always enjoyed your posts and it's too bad you think of me as an idiot. I cannot believe how defensive fans are about a negative article that makes some valid points. I rarely post, yet felt strongly enough about this topic to comment. Sorry that I take a stance different from yours.

23659[/snapback]

 

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool.

 

Psychology majors might call this projection.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Sorry RJ... I added my response to the bottom of your post. You can tell I am not a frequest poster. Thanks again

23673[/snapback]

 

 

Happy to oblige, Bills Brother.

[kasper13]

Sullivan is a first class a-hole. He is originally from the BOSTON area and comes from the WGR School of Crappy Journalism. That should tell you everything right there. He is not objective when it comes to writing about things he hates- i.e. the Bills, Sabres, Buffalo (and also the Yankees) Why he doesn't write for a Boston paper or even lives in WNY is beyond me. Yesterday, he tried to compare the Yankees-Devil Rays forefit fiasco and the tropical storm that hit TB with 9/11/01. He always looks for non-issues, starts crap and hammers on the Bills every chance he gets. I want to find this guy and punch his lights out. I heard he will be at the crappy little WGR tailgate on Sunday AM at the Ralph. I suggest everyone walk by and give him the bird.

[Dawgg]

Wrong, Todd.

 

You say psychology majors would call this "projection"

 

I say statisticians would call this a "solid sample size"

 

Jerry Sullivan has brought up Donahoe's record over the past 5 years.

 

No half-truths

 

No distortions

 

No misleading statements here either. He is simply citing the last 5 years under Donahoe's regime and bring up a record of 30-50. That is fact. And fact is truth. Guess that makes me a "buttmunch" as you would say, but the numbers don't lie.

 

5 years is an eternity in today's NFL and in his 3 years thus far, Donahoe has not gotten the job done. If you really feel there are factual omissions in his article, more power to you. POINT THEM OUT. That's what this board is for.

 

You're right, Donahoe is a pretty solid, well-respected personnel guy. But Sullivan, while a bit on the extreme, brings up some valid points. If you feel that some of those points are a bunch of baloney, why not point them out?

 

Where are the half-truths (the record can't be one, nor can the coaching choices or many of his draft choices)

 

 

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool.

 

Psychology majors might call this projection.

23679[/snapback]

[Buftex]

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool.

 

Psychology majors might call this projection.

23679[/snapback]

 

 

Hey, I am pretty optimisitic about the Bills, but I have to say, TD is not showing me that he is the genious that his reputation indicated. Even when everyone was ga-ga over us hiring him, I felt like his track record with the Steelers was good, but did anyone ever think they were a shoe-in to be SB champs?

 

He has been very good at generating enthusiasim for the team, but like Sullivan, I am not sure that I am as sold on his ability to judge talent as I once was. It seems that many of our draft picks over the last three years, are still waiting to make an impact. I am hopeful that Kelsay will reverse that trend this year. And, I absolutely agree with the contention that the teams biggest weakness had been, and still seems to be, the offensive line. Villareal is a decent pick up, but will he be a lot better than Brown? It remains to be seen.

 

McGahee, no matter how good he may turn out to be, IMO, WAS an arrogant pick! He was not a need at all, and we needed (and continue to need) depth, and front-line talent at other spots on the roster.

 

Some of TD's free-agent signings have been pretty dreadful as well, but I don't hold that against him. To his credit, he rarely overpays, or mortgages the teams future on free agents. All, except TKO and Milloy, have come relatively cheap. If they don't pan out, it is not a disaster.

 

 

I don't blame all of the tems woes on TD, as Sullivan seems to, but I think we can all agree that this past season was one of the most disappointing in the teams recent history. At least some of that blame goes to TD, not all. That doesn't mean we can't have a great season this year. As many mistakes as TD may have or may make in the future, one thing I do like about the guy a lot, is he is very pro-active.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Wrong, Todd. 

 

You say psychology majors would call this "projection"

 

I say statisticians would call this a "solid sample size"

 

Jerry Sullivan has brought up Donahoe's record over the past 5 years.

 

No half-truths

 

No distortions

 

No misleading statements here either.  He is simply citing the last 5 years under Donahoe's regime and bring up a record of 30-50.  That is fact.  And fact is truth.  Guess that makes me a "buttmunch" as you would say, but the numbers don't lie.

 

5 years is an eternity in today's NFL and in his 3 years thus far, Donahoe has not gotten the job done.  If you really feel there are factual omissions in his article, more power to you.  POINT THEM OUT. That's what this board is for.

 

You're right, Donahoe is a pretty solid, well-respected personnel guy.  But Sullivan, while a bit on the extreme, brings up some valid points.  If you feel that some of those points are a bunch of baloney, why not point them out? 

 

Where are the half-truths (the record can't be one, nor can the coaching choices or many of his draft choices)

 

 

 

23772[/snapback]

 

 

Not to get in the way of your personal attack on Todd... but did you read my post? I did offer an assessment of Sullivan's half-truths. I would not put words in Todd's mouth (with those teeth, there is probably not enough room ), but I would guess he and I are on the same page.

 

End of self-advertisement.

 

Go Bills!

[Like A Mofo]

Honestly, Im not crazy about the Bills' chances and this is definitely time for Donohoe to get it right or get out. But that article was a hatchet job. Blasting the Magahee pick NOW is just plain stupid.

 

That article and its tone would be just fine if God forbid its three months from now and the team is under .500. But writing something like that NOW? Way out of place.

23429[/snapback]

 

 

I totally agree with this post, especially the last part of it. Can we all flashback to this exact day last year (in football terms, the Thur before the start of the NFL season), didnt TD sign Lawyer Milloy and we destroyed the now defending SB Champs? Then we beat the Jags, and TD was receiveing praise? Where exactly did that get us? NOWHERE...

 

Now for 2004: Why even think one way or the other right now? How do we REALLY know? Bills have a rookie HC, new coaching staff, new playbook, it will probably take some time to jell, if it does jell.

 

There is pressure on TD this year, but maybe not so much for the playoffs. If the Bills improve to 9-7, thats stilla 3 game improvement, thats a solid improvement in the NFL. We need to see progress, we need to see the pass rush improve, we need to see McGahee improve, the OL improves as the year goes on under McNally, and we need to see players TD drafted improve, thats the real key to judging TD. If they play like last year, then Im all for the change.

[ganesh]

I have always enjoyed your posts and it's too bad you think of me as an idiot. I cannot believe how defensive fans are about a negative article that makes some valid points. I rarely post, yet felt strongly enough about this topic to comment. Sorry that I take a stance different from yours.

23659[/snapback]

 

The issue was not about the article represting some valid facts....But to twist them around to your liking.

 

1. MW Vs McKinne: I think the jury is still out on both of them. Neihther have them

have distnguished themseleves to be a All-Pro yet. (Someone posted both

their stats from last year and facts speak for themselves).

 

2. McGahee pick: To call it arrogant is absurd...Why is that reporters love this pick

if it would have been made by a high profile team like dallas or oakland, but

call the bills a small market team arrogant for taking him. Aren't small market

teams allowed to take chances.. Plus hindsight is 20-20...How do we know

that Steinbach who was a 2nd round pick will be such a good starter..

Remember the draft is a crap shoot.

 

3. TD did bring in talent like Henry, Schoebel (through the draft),

Spikes, Posey, Sam Adams, when many FA did not want to come to

buffalo.

 

4. John Fox over Greg Williams: At that point of time both GW and JF had

equal chance of succeeding.....Both were the architects of the best

defenses in Ten and NY. As some article in CNN or ESPN pointed out

today, that the Panthers won 7 games that went into overtime or the

final 2minutes. If their luck had gone the other way in those games then

they don't make the playoffs and are a 6-10 team like the bills and then

John Fox is not the same "great" coach....

 

The problem was that JS twisting the facts to suit his ideas to vent his

frustrations on TD.....wihtout giving credit for things that he has done.

 

The last line about the bills not being a playoff contender is laughable...Every

team in todays NFL has weakness in different areas and there is no team

that is strong in all areas....which gives every single team a chance to win.

Look at the lines for all the games in week1....Except for the games against

the cardinals and chargers all the lines are 3.5 in favor of the home team...

That is saying how balance the NFL is, not who is goign to win the superbowl.

[EndZoneCrew]

When I walk by I will make sure to ask him what he is doing there....when he asks why.....I'll just mention to him that there has to be a tennis match or NBA

off-season shoot around going on that he can write about

[San-O]

I am in agreement with Sullivan, and believe he (TD) has made arrogent picks

not realizing the true talent and state of the team. His take on the interview

of GW and TD finding a top rate staff, selling us a load was also right on.

[San-O]

No.  He is trying to sell papers and articles like this get people to read the News.  Whether it is complete crap you still read the article.  Sullivan did his job.  He is a complete fool but stirring the pot sells papers.

23426[/snapback]

 

 

What part of the article is complete crap? His first hire was a failure and allowed

GW to bring in a bunch oif nit wits and friends including Gilbride. His drafting has

also been very supspect.

 

17-31 after three years. Not good.

 

at TD.

[San-O]

You're missing the point. It is idiotic to take as fact opinions based on half-truths and factual omissions. That's what Sullivan is a master of. If you take Donahoe's record as a whole, you will find that while he is not faultless, he's done a good job of assembling a good team. Sullivan takes the stance that Donahoe is an overrated fool.

 

Psychology majors might call this projection.

23679[/snapback]

 

 

Record as a whole, a good job? Based on what? GW and Gilbride, 17-31, or

bust dratf picks?

[todd]

Nope. I'm right. You example of sample size is perfect. It's easy to choose the past 5 years because it omits the success that donahoe has had in the past. I'd even call the 2002 season a success because it was in line with what could be expected after a miserable first season under Williams.

 

Jerry sullivan brought up the past 5 years because it was convenient for his idiotic, venom-spewing opinions. That in itself is a HALF TRUTH! It's as plain as day! If he took into consideration all situations, and the past 10 years, you'd see a different picture. But that's not the picture Sulliprick wants to paint. He doesn't want to be objective. I don't mind someone being negative when it warrants it, as long as you are objective. The wanker sure isn't objective, and that's what bothers me. To call out Donahoe as a failure is really, really stupid, and not supportable by rational thought process.

 

Screw sullivan.

 

Wrong, Todd. 

 

You say psychology majors would call this "projection"

 

I say statisticians would call this a "solid sample size"

 

Jerry Sullivan has brought up Donahoe's record over the past 5 years.

 

No half-truths

 

No distortions

 

No misleading statements here either.  He is simply citing the last 5 years under Donahoe's regime and bring up a record of 30-50.  That is fact.  And fact is truth.  Guess that makes me a "buttmunch" as you would say, but the numbers don't lie.

 

5 years is an eternity in today's NFL and in his 3 years thus far, Donahoe has not gotten the job done.  If you really feel there are factual omissions in his article, more power to you.  POINT THEM OUT. That's what this board is for.

 

You're right, Donahoe is a pretty solid, well-respected personnel guy.  But Sullivan, while a bit on the extreme, brings up some valid points.  If you feel that some of those points are a bunch of baloney, why not point them out? 

 

Where are the half-truths (the record can't be one, nor can the coaching choices or many of his draft choices)

23772[/snapback]