Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think he is trying to stir up trouble. I don't accept that as his objective. Is he aware that is a potential byproduct of his questioning? I am sure he is. But that isn't a reason not to ask it. JW's primary responsibility is to do his job as a journalist. It is not to avoid asking the tough questions in case it rocks the boat.

We just don't agree about this.  His job is to write content about the Bills.  A journalist goes to where there is news, gathers information, and reports on it in accordance with certain established principles of journalism.  It's not a journalist's job to create news, and that's what Wawrow was trying to do.   He already knew there was no news about vaccines, because he'd been told there wasn't anything Poyer would say about it.  Nothing had changed.  So long as Poyer said nothing, there was no news.   There only would be news if Wawrow created a circumstance where Poyer said something that Poyer already had told him he didn't want to say.   Poyer had already told Wawrow twice that there was no news. Wawrow asked again. A good journalist knows when there's no news. 

 

Now, an investigative journalist asks tough questions, looks for inconsistencies and all that, but in my mind an investigative journalist is someone who looks to uncover news of significance - like some government official covering up information, or a hacker gang skimming money from millions of bank accounts.   A guy trying to find out if some movie star's girlfriend slept with her latest costar is not an investigative journalist.  He's just someone looking for something sensational to write.  

 

Every other writer at Poyer's press conference knew the drill:   We all ask some questions for 15 minutes, Poyer gives us some answers.   Whatever he says is the news we have for the day.  That's what we cover.   After the press conference, we each sit down and write an article about what Poyer said.  If we want, our articles can say Poyer declined to comment about the vaccination issue.   That's the news, that's what journalists cover.   

 

After the season ended, the press asked Beasley about his injury.   He said he had a broken fibula.   That's news.  People asked follow-up questions to get the complete story.  That's what journalists do.   They didn't ask him if he was pissed off at Barkley for having thrown a ball that led to his injury.  Now, that would have been an in-your-face question, but no one should be surprised if someone asks it.  Beasley, of course, would have said no, it wasn't Barkley's fault.  If he'd then gotten a follow-up question asking again if he was pissed at Barkley, Beasley would have been justifiably unhappy about it.   You ask the question, you get an answer.  If you don't like the answer, too bad, you don't ask it again.  

 

Wawrow was trying to create a controversy where this is none.  If he wants to write an opinion piece that says the Bills are making a mistake by not forcing their players to get vaccinated, he's free to do that.   If what he writes is persuasive, great, he's created his controversy.  I might think the controversy is stupid, and I might not like that Wawrow created the controversy, but I'm not going to complain about it.   But when he sets out to get a Bills player to do something that is not in the interest of the Bills,, something the player has already told him he doesn't want to, then he's trying to make matters worse for my team, and I don't like that.  

[GunnerBill]

35 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

We just don't agree about this.  His job is to write content about the Bills.  A journalist goes to where there is news, gathers information, and reports on it in accordance with certain established principles of journalism.  It's not a journalist's job to create news, and that's what Wawrow was trying to do.   He already knew there was no news about vaccines, because he'd been told there wasn't anything Poyer would say about it.  Nothing had changed.  So long as Poyer said nothing, there was no news.   There only would be news if Wawrow created a circumstance where Poyer said something that Poyer already had told him he didn't want to say.   Poyer had already told Wawrow twice that there was no news. Wawrow asked again. A good journalist knows when there's no news. 

 

Now, an investigative journalist asks tough questions, looks for inconsistencies and all that, but in my mind an investigative journalist is someone who looks to uncover news of significance - like some government official covering up information, or a hacker gang skimming money from millions of bank accounts.   A guy trying to find out if some movie star's girlfriend slept with her latest costar is not an investigative journalist.  He's just someone looking for something sensational to write.  

 

Every other writer at Poyer's press conference knew the drill:   We all ask some questions for 15 minutes, Poyer gives us some answers.   Whatever he says is the news we have for the day.  That's what we cover.   After the press conference, we each sit down and write an article about what Poyer said.  If we want, our articles can say Poyer declined to comment about the vaccination issue.   That's the news, that's what journalists cover.   

 

After the season ended, the press asked Beasley about his injury.   He said he had a broken fibula.   That's news.  People asked follow-up questions to get the complete story.  That's what journalists do.   They didn't ask him if he was pissed off at Barkley for having thrown a ball that led to his injury.  Now, that would have been an in-your-face question, but no one should be surprised if someone asks it.  Beasley, of course, would have said no, it wasn't Barkley's fault.  If he'd then gotten a follow-up question asking again if he was pissed at Barkley, Beasley would have been justifiably unhappy about it.   You ask the question, you get an answer.  If you don't like the answer, too bad, you don't ask it again.  

 

Wawrow was trying to create a controversy where this is none.  If he wants to write an opinion piece that says the Bills are making a mistake by not forcing their players to get vaccinated, he's free to do that.   If what he writes is persuasive, great, he's created his controversy.  I might think the controversy is stupid, and I might not like that Wawrow created the controversy, but I'm not going to complain about it.   But when he sets out to get a Bills player to do something that is not in the interest of the Bills,, something the player has already told him he doesn't want to, then he's trying to make matters worse for my team, and I don't like that.  

 

So let me as a former journalist who has been a beat reporter (different country, different sport) correct a few of your incorrect assumptions.

 

1. Wawrow was not trying to "create news." The vaccine issue affects the team. The NFL/NFLPA regulations couldn't be clearer about that. The Bills saying "we are not talking about it" doesn't stop there being news there. There is news there whether the Bills like it or not. Prominent members of the organisation have articulated conflicting views on an issue that affects the season. That is news. Full stop. 

 

2. The point about "the rest of them didn't ask it".... well of course not. That isn't how the beat works. Vic Carucci pressed Sean the week before. Wawrow pressed Poyer. I bet someone else presses the point next week too. It is how the beat works. We talk to each other. I spent just over a year on the Man City beat when they had a moody and explosive coach. We would discuss before the Thursday presser who was gonna push the button. Even if you don't expressly discuss it you all know the score - you share that stuff out. 

 

3. I repeat, it is not Wawrow's job to put the best interest of the Bills ahead of his job as a journalist. It just isn't. The Bills do not get to dictate what is news and what is not. Journalists are not just mechanisms for communicating the message. That is what public relations people do. It is not 'our' job. I left journalism because someone essentially asked me to do that. It is vacuous, pointless and extremely unfullfilling. I don't wish to speak for JW but my take is he is nobody's patsy. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Shaw66]

23 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So let me as a former journalist who has been a beat reporter (different country, different sport) correct a few of your incorrect assumptions.

 

1. Wawrow was not trying to "create news." The vaccine issue affects the team. The NFL/NFLPA regulations couldn't be clearer about that. The Bills saying "we are not talking about it" doesn't stop there being news there. There is news there whether the Bills like it or not. Prominent members of the organisation have articulated conflicting views on an issue that affects the season. That is news. Full stop. 

 

2. The point about "the rest of them didn't ask it".... well of course not. That isn't how the beat works. Vic Carucci pressed Sean the week before. Wawrow pressed Poyer. I bet someone else presses the point next week too. It is how the beat works. We talk to each other. I spent just over a year on the Man City beat when they had a moody and explosive coach. We would discuss before the Thursday presser who was gonna push the button. Even if you don't expressly discuss it you all know the score - you share that stuff out. 

 

3. I repeat, it is not Wawrow's job to put the best interest of the Bills ahead of his job as a journalist. It just isn't. The Bills do not get to dictate what is news and what is not. Journalists are not just mechanisms for communicating the message. That is what public relations people do. It is not 'our' job. I left journalism because someone essentially asked me to do that. It is vacuous, pointless and extremely unfullfilling. I don't wish to speak for JW but my take is he is nobody's patsy. 

Thanks.   That's interesting.  I appreciate it. 

 

As to 1. There's a difference to a subject being newsworthy and the existence of actual news.   Google's privacy policies are newsworthy, but that doesn't mean there is actual news about it on any given day.   There was no news about the Bills' vaccine policy on that day.  The Bills hadn't changed their policy as to the vaccine, and the players hadn't changed their policy about talking about it.  No news.   That was made clear by Poyer before the press conference started.   Wawrow was trying to get Poyer to say something that would have been newsworthy.  He was trying to make Poyer the news.  

 

As to 2.  That's very interesting. Thanks for explaining that. 

 

As to 3.   It's not only the reason you left journalism.  It's the reason a lot of people left.   It's become "vacuous, pointless and extremely unfulfilling."   That is the world that Wawrow works in.    The Associated Press doesn't want the Bills complaining to them about Wawrow's behavior, and the Associated Press certainly doesn't want the guy they've assigned to cover the Bills to have limited access.  News papers are struggling to survive, and they don't want their writers creating problems.  They just want quality content.  

 

Among journalists on the beat, I'm sure they give each other big huzzahs and pats on the back when one of them breaks a story like "Poyer disagrees with Edmunds about the vaccine." The Associated Press cares very little about that.  Now, maybe, once in a while the AP gets to sell an article Wawrow writes because of the content - the Denver Post picked up his article when Beane said he'd cut a guy to get to the vaccine limit, but his value to the AP is much more just about his ability to cover the news competently.    

 

Several years ago I read that sportswriters at local rural papers were losing their jobs because someone had created software that generates articles.  All you had to do was enter the score, the winning pitcher, the losing pitcher and some other facts, and voila! - you've got your article about Regional High's win over Wheatfield.  The problem Wawrow and many journalists have is that, talented as they are, ambitious and insightful as they are, increasingly an article written by a computer is good enough for the newspaper.  

[oldmanfan]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I've been lurking around, looking at what people are saying here since I said my piece, but something Happy Days said got me to want to get reengaged.  

 

First, to be clear, I want to apologize to JW.  I think what I said may have been misinterpreted.  I didn't mean to disparage him by saying he was not a journalist.   My sense of the guy is that he works at his craft, he's written a lot of really good stuff, and I'm sure he does his best to adhere to the principles of journalism.   However, that doesn't change what his job is.   He is job is to create content, day after day.  His job is to write a couple hundred words about the Bills every couple of days that are meaningful, informative, and seem fresh.  Yes, scooping the other writers sometimes helps him write something that attracts extra readers, but Wawrow was not going to scoop anyone by asking these questions at an open press conference.   Everyone else would have been in on it immediately, and there would have been no scoop. 

 

Second, also to be clear, I've said and I continue to believe that he's free to ask whatever questions he wants.  That's up to him.   What I said was that by doing what he did, he will tend to limit the access he gets to the Bills.  It will tend to limit the quality of the responses he gets from the team, because if they're unhappy with the way he pursues them, the natural tendency of human beings, including the Bills, is to stay away from the guy.   From his point of view, it's bad for his business if he antagonizes the Bills, because it will affect his ability to write the kind of content his employer wants.  

 

So, as I've been reading the comments of people, I've been wondering why it is that what Wawrow did bothers me?   I mean, why do I care if he's doing something that may affect his job performance negatively?   If he can't figure out what's good for him and what isn't, that's his problem.   Then I read what Happy Days said - that the real reason that Wawrow asked the questions and persisted was that he was trying to create controversy, which Happy said is the currency of the internet these days.  Why create controversy?  Because it's easier to write a couple of hundred words about the Bills if there is a controversy pending.   If there's no controversy, it takes some creativity to write something that engages readers. 

 

And then I realized it:  What I don't like about Wawrow asking those questions is that he's trying to create controversy, and controversy is bad for my team!   That's the problem.   This is my team he's talking about, and he's trying to make my team look bad and he's trying to get the players on my team to argue with each other in the press.   He's trying to disrupt the community of players that McDermott works hard to create and maintain.   Is he trying to do this because he WANTS to make problems for the Bills?   No.  He's trying to create controversy because it will be easier to write about the Bills,  easier or more fun, or more interesting.   He's trying to disrupt what's going on within the Bills organization for his own benefit or entertainment.  

 

I don't need that and I don't want that.  Controversy is not good for my team.  It's not good for my team if Wawrow tricks Poyer in talking about something that he promised his teammates he wouldn't talk about.  It's not good for my team if Poyer says something about one of his teammates and then his teammate tweets a response.   The Bills are going to do whatever they do about the vaccination, and none of Wawrow's questions are going to change that.   But Wawrow's questions CAN change the team chemistry - I don't want that, and McDermott doesn't want that.  

 

There is nothing good for my team that was going to come out of Wawrow's questions to Poyer, and there was potentially something bad.  (And please don't try to tell me that JW's probing questions might cause Poyer to reconsider his point of view and that in turn might cause him to lead the Bills in a different direction that might be beneficial to the team.  It's true, it might, but a mid-air butterfly could have created an instantaneous micro-draft that might have pushed Norwood's kick inside the right upright, too.  Wawrow wasn't trying to improve the Bills' decision-making, and the chances that his questions actually would have an impact were miniscule.)

 

The simple fact is that I don't want my beat writers trying to stir up trouble with my team.  It isn't good for team, and I don't want it.  

 

 

You’re right in that controversy can be bad for the team.  What can be worse for the team is a key player or players missing games due to Covid.  And since there is a way to avoid that via vaccination, it is certainly reasonable to ask key players on the team about why they would not take advantage of that option.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

You’re right in that controversy can be bad for the team.  What can be worse for the team is a key player or players missing games due to Covid.  And since there is a way to avoid that via vaccination, it is certainly reasonable to ask key players on the team about why they would not take advantage of that option.

I dont know why people are having trouble understanding this.  Of course it's a reasonable question.  It just isn't reasonable to keep asking it when you've been told it's not going to be answered.  Its evidence that you're trying to trap the player or the team, and the players and coaches don't like that.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

You’re right in that controversy can be bad for the team.  What can be worse for the team is a key player or players missing games due to Covid.  And since there is a way to avoid that via vaccination, it is certainly reasonable to ask key players on the team about why they would not take advantage of that option.

 

Except that wasn't what Wawrow asked.....

21 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I dont know why people are having trouble understanding this.  Of course it's a reasonable question.  It just isn't reasonable to keep asking it when you've been told it's not going to be answered.  Its evidence that you're trying to trap the player or the team, and the players and coaches don't like that.  

 

Again, I think you're making too much out of what Wawrow actually asked.  The hesitant, putting his thoughts together as he spoke way he asked, I think is pretty clearly in part because he was trying to find something to ask that fell outside of Poyer's request.  So I think it's a big stretch to claim it's either. 

[oldmanfan]

37 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I dont know why people are having trouble understanding this.  Of course it's a reasonable question.  It just isn't reasonable to keep asking it when you've been told it's not going to be answered.  Its evidence that you're trying to trap the player or the team, and the players and coaches don't like that.  

In theory I would say that questions should not be repetitious regardless of topic.  It’s what drove me nuts about Sullivan.  But given the critical nature of the pandemic and how vaccination status could affect the team I think it’s a cop out for Poyer to say he refuses to discuss it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

In theory I would say that questions should not be repetitious regardless of topic.  It’s what drove me nuts about Sullivan.  But given the critical nature of the pandemic and how vaccination status could affect the team I think it’s a cop out for Poyer to say he refuses to discuss it.

 

I have to disagree with that last.  I think it's something the Bills as a team have all agreed on. 

 

 

[Buddo]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have to disagree with that last.  I think it's something the Bills as a team have all agreed on. 

 

 

In which case, the team as a whole are copping out.

 

Irrespective of anything else, it is going to become a distraction. 

Sometimes, the way you try and deal with an issue, doesn’t work as you wanted it to.

 

I can see this being the case here. 

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, Buddo said:

In which case, the team as a whole are copping out.

 

Irrespective of anything else, it is going to become a distraction. 

Sometimes, the way you try and deal with an issue, doesn’t work as you wanted it to.

 

I can see this being the case here. 

Oh they are definitely copping out. If no one says anything then no one can be singled out and asked hard questions. Obviously they’ve discussed this collectively and decided this is the way they’re gonna go with it. Personally I don’t like it but i’m not all bent about it either. 

[oldmanfan]

8 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have to disagree with that last.  I think it's something the Bills as a team have all agreed on. 

 

 

I get your point.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, Buddo said:

In which case, the team as a whole are copping out.

I don’t see it that way, but if not answering = cop out then sure, that’s logical

 

4 hours ago, Buddo said:

Irrespective of anything else, it is going to become a distraction. 

Sometimes, the way you try and deal with an issue, doesn’t work as you wanted it to.

 

I can see this being the case here. 

 

On my list of concerns about this, “media distraction” is probably #21 or so

[KennyDavisEyes]

Wawrow, or whatever his name is, certainly can ask whatever he wants but he sounded like a pansy with his tip toeing, stuttering, mumblin’ bumblin’, fumblin’…….   
 

If you’re gonna be a tough guy and ask the question, that the player said he wasn’t gonna talk about, then be a man and ask the question with confidence.
 

Poyer laughed in his face.  My man!

[Shaw66]

6 hours ago, Buddo said:

In which case, the team as a whole are copping out.

 

Irrespective of anything else, it is going to become a distraction. 

Sometimes, the way you try and deal with an issue, doesn’t work as you wanted it to.

 

I can see this being the case here. 

I think that's a good take.  Frankly, what I think is going to happen is that guys will get the vaccine and the problem will go away.   The guys who aren't yet vaccinated will begin to feel too much pressure, even if it's self-imposed pressure.  The Bills just will announce one day that they are no longer subject to the restriction.   I seriously doubt the Bills will enter the regular season operating under the COVID restrictions.  

 

And you're right, it's the team, not Poyer.   But I don't think it's fair to call it a cop out.   The established rules in this country, whether any of us may like it or not, is that medical information is personal and private and may be shared with others only with the person whose information it is.  The team isn't talking about this subject because the team, including the players, have chosen to respect those privacy rights.  Now, one might argue that they are using that argument to hide beyond doing the opposite, but that's a problem that comes along with granting people rights - the rights may be exercised for purposes other than we might have thought was intended.  

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Oh they are definitely copping out. If no one says anything then no one can be singled out and asked hard questions. Obviously they’ve discussed this collectively and decided this is the way they’re gonna go with it. Personally I don’t like it but i’m not all bent about it either. 

Each of us has his own reaction about these things.   I'm not bent out of shape about the fact that they've agreed not to talk about it.  I think that shows their solidarity as a team, and I like that.  And it doesn't hurt the team, unless and until it becomes a distraction.  

 

I'm bent out of shape because some guys aren't getting vaccinated.   Now, I don't care if people in the general public are deciding not to get vaccinated, but these guys have a job where getting jabbed with needles is a pretty common occurrence.   They put all kinds of things in their bodies.  I believe that refusing to get jabbed with this particular needle is selfish and against the team's interests.   I mean, Beasley's attitude last season was "shoot me up with anything, just get me on the field."   I think these guys have chosen a profession where you're expected to do everything possible to help your team win, and that should extend to getting the COVID shot.  

 

I just don't think there's anything wrong with the team deciding they aren't going to talk to me about the subject.  

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I just don't think there's anything wrong with the team deciding they aren't going to talk to me about the subject.  

 

To be clear, nor do I. But they equally can't expect that pulling the curtain across and saying nothing to see here is going to stop the media asking about the huge elephant in the room whose trunk is clearly visible through the curtain. I maintain it is not the media's job to simply wait until the Bills ordain to discuss the matter. It is their job to try and work out what is going on behind the scenes and what the balance of views are and whether there is a real risk of the Bills being a team negatively impacted by the new regulations because of the personal approach to vaccination of some players. 

 

When McDermott spoke last week he said "their job" which I took to mean management and staff was to "educate". What I suspect is happening is the Bills currently have a reasonably large number of non-vaccinated players and they are refusing to discuss it to buy themselves time during OTAs and mini camp to try and encourage take up before training camp where I suspect it is going to be much harder for them to shut up shop on the issue unless the NFL allows them to exceptionally restrict media access outside of the usual rules. Like I say, I have no issue at all with that as a strategy but the media are not obliged to just go along with it and indeed if they did they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly IMO. 

[Shaw66]

17 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

To be clear, nor do I. But they equally can't expect that pulling the curtain across and saying nothing to see here is going to stop the media asking about the huge elephant in the room whose trunk is clearly visible through the curtain. I maintain it is not the media's job to simply wait until the Bills ordain to discuss the matter. It is their job to try and work out what is going on behind the scenes and what the balance of views are and whether there is a real risk of the Bills being a team negatively impacted by the new regulations because of the personal approach to vaccination of some players. 

 

When McDermott spoke last week he said "their job" which I took to mean management and staff was to "educate". What I suspect is happening is the Bills currently have a reasonably large number of non-vaccinated players and they are refusing to discuss it to buy themselves time during OTAs and mini camp to try and encourage take up before training camp where I suspect it is going to be much harder for them to shut up shop on the issue unless the NFL allows them to exceptionally restrict media access outside of the usual rules. Like I say, I have no issue at all with that as a strategy but the media are not obliged to just go along with it and indeed if they did they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly IMO. 

I just don't agree it's an elephant.   It may be raccoon - that is, something that eventually may become a problem.  I don't think it's an elephant. 

 

I'm interested in you second paragraph.   I have read practically nothing (in part because the Bills have said practically nothing), but I've always assumed that the Bills didn't have a "reasonably large number of non-vaccinated players."   I've assumed that the Bills are pretty close to whatever the numbers are that would give them relief from the COVID rules.  I've assumed that because it isn't very logical to assume the Bills are far from the limit when thirty teams have gotten there easily.  Statistically speaking, the Bills would be an extraordinary outlier if they were far from the limit.  

 

I've assumed instead that this situation was informed by how teams handled the kneeling issue and the George Floyd issue, which is to give serious respect (some might say too serious) to how each person felt about the subject.   My sense of what the Bills did was agree that if they could be 100% behind something, they would be completely private about it - like, for example, they would stay in the locker room for the national anthem.  I think they've done that here.   I think they've said each man's view about the vaccine (both his view with respect to his personal health care and treatment and his political view of the situation) is personal to him and deserves to be respected.  

 

I think what you say about McDermott and "educating" players is correct.  McDermott is working to find a way to persuade players to get the vaccine by getting them to balance their personal views and the personal commitment to the team.  He's probably telling these guys, or helping these guys see, that the team is standing behind them and that they also have a duty to stand with the team.   

 

Will the COVID rules be a significant disadvantage to the Bills when they hit training camp?    I don't know - the Bills did very well getting ready for 2020 under those rules, and given the extent of the non-contact rules that the league and players' association have with respect to team practice generally, I'm not so sure that McDermott sees a big disadvantage.   Most business functioned just fine once they adapted to the COVID rules, and there isn't necessarily any reason why a football team can't flourish under those rules.  And in a perverse way, this gives McDermott an opportunity to do what is at the core of his philosophy - to build solidarity.  There's no doubt in my mind that there are guys on the team who are pissed that some of their teammates haven't been vaccinated, and McDermott is working to bring the team together in the face of that conflict.  When he does that, he will have a team that truly is ready to die for another.  

 

Is there any evidence about how far from the limit the Bills actually are?   Is it three players or 20?

 

Thanks for chatting. 

[GunnerBill]

28 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I just don't agree it's an elephant.   It may be raccoon - that is, something that eventually may become a problem.  I don't think it's an elephant. 

 

I'm interested in you second paragraph.   I have read practically nothing (in part because the Bills have said practically nothing), but I've always assumed that the Bills didn't have a "reasonably large number of non-vaccinated players."   I've assumed that the Bills are pretty close to whatever the numbers are that would give them relief from the COVID rules.  I've assumed that because it isn't very logical to assume the Bills are far from the limit when thirty teams have gotten there easily.  Statistically speaking, the Bills would be an extraordinary outlier if they were far from the limit.  

 

I've assumed instead that this situation was informed by how teams handled the kneeling issue and the George Floyd issue, which is to give serious respect (some might say too serious) to how each person felt about the subject.   My sense of what the Bills did was agree that if they could be 100% behind something, they would be completely private about it - like, for example, they would stay in the locker room for the national anthem.  I think they've done that here.   I think they've said each man's view about the vaccine (both his view with respect to his personal health care and treatment and his political view of the situation) is personal to him and deserves to be respected.  

 

I think what you say about McDermott and "educating" players is correct.  McDermott is working to find a way to persuade players to get the vaccine by getting them to balance their personal views and the personal commitment to the team.  He's probably telling these guys, or helping these guys see, that the team is standing behind them and that they also have a duty to stand with the team.   

 

Will the COVID rules be a significant disadvantage to the Bills when they hit training camp?    I don't know - the Bills did very well getting ready for 2020 under those rules, and given the extent of the non-contact rules that the league and players' association have with respect to team practice generally, I'm not so sure that McDermott sees a big disadvantage.   Most business functioned just fine once they adapted to the COVID rules, and there isn't necessarily any reason why a football team can't flourish under those rules.  And in a perverse way, this gives McDermott an opportunity to do what is at the core of his philosophy - to build solidarity.  There's no doubt in my mind that there are guys on the team who are pissed that some of their teammates haven't been vaccinated, and McDermott is working to bring the team together in the face of that conflict.  When he does that, he will have a team that truly is ready to die for another.  

 

Is there any evidence about how far from the limit the Bills actually are?   Is it three players or 20?

 

Thanks for chatting. 

 

When I said a reasonably large number I meant when looked at in comparison to the league. Comparatively large is what I meant. That might well not be far away from meeting the threshold and I don't mean to suggest they are a major outlier. However, even the threshold isn't the end of the matter because while that allows the team in general more freedoms the non-vaccinated individuals still have stricter rules that would govern them. I don't want to make this a Josh issue but it is particularly relevant at Quarterback. If Josh is non-vacced I think it makes the Bills carry 3 on their roster which otherwise I suspect they would not do this year. 

 

As for the point about working around the regs last year and this year... I have no doubt McDermott will have them prepared whatever happens. It is just who he is. Last season, however, every team was in the same spot. Same regulations, same protocols, same risks to manage. It would, unquestionably in my mind, put the Bills at a disadvantage this year if they are governed by stricter protocols to the point where, as Brandon Beane himself admitted, at the bottom end of the roster it could become a deciding factor in cut decisions. If they are as a team at the threshold but have key individuals in the non-vacced camp that has stricter rules applying to them individually then that could disadvantage them too. 

 

All of which is why I believe it is accurately described as an elephant in the room that the Bills want to (very reasonably) hide behind the curtain, but which the media are well within their rights to continue to seek more detail regarding.

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

When I said a reasonably large number I meant when looked at in comparison to the league. Comparatively large is what I meant. That might well not be far away from meeting the threshold and I don't mean to suggest they are a major outlier. However, even the threshold isn't the end of the matter because while that allows the team in general more freedoms the non-vaccinated individuals still have stricter rules that would govern them. I don't want to make this a Josh issue but it is particularly relevant at Quarterback. If Josh is non-vacced I think it makes the Bills carry 3 on their roster which otherwise I suspect they would not do this year. 

 

As for the point about working around the regs last year and this year... I have no doubt McDermott will have them prepared whatever happens. It is just who he is. Last season, however, every team was in the same spot. Same regulations, same protocols, same risks to manage. It would, unquestionably in my mind, put the Bills at a disadvantage this year if they are governed by stricter protocols to the point where, as Brandon Beane himself admitted, at the bottom end of the roster it could become a deciding factor in cut decisions. If they are as a team at the threshold but have key individuals in the non-vacced camp that has stricter rules applying to them individually then that could disadvantage them too. 

 

All of which is why I believe it is accurately described as an elephant in the room that the Bills want to (very reasonably) hide behind the curtain, but which the media are well within their rights to continue to seek more detail regarding.

Peter King suggests in his column this morning that the vaccine issue is a particular concern in Buffalo.

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

When I said a reasonably large number I meant when looked at in comparison to the league. Comparatively large is what I meant. That might well not be far away from meeting the threshold and I don't mean to suggest they are a major outlier. However, even the threshold isn't the end of the matter because while that allows the team in general more freedoms the non-vaccinated individuals still have stricter rules that would govern them. I don't want to make this a Josh issue but it is particularly relevant at Quarterback. If Josh is non-vacced I think it makes the Bills carry 3 on their roster which otherwise I suspect they would not do this year. 

 

As for the point about working around the regs last year and this year... I have no doubt McDermott will have them prepared whatever happens. It is just who he is. Last season, however, every team was in the same spot. Same regulations, same protocols, same risks to manage. It would, unquestionably in my mind, put the Bills at a disadvantage this year if they are governed by stricter protocols to the point where, as Brandon Beane himself admitted, at the bottom end of the roster it could become a deciding factor in cut decisions. If they are as a team at the threshold but have key individuals in the non-vacced camp that has stricter rules applying to them individually then that could disadvantage them too. 

 

All of which is why I believe it is accurately described as an elephant in the room that the Bills want to (very reasonably) hide behind the curtain, but which the media are well within their rights to continue to seek more detail regarding.

Thanks.   QB certainly would be an issue.  Although I'm sure there are other areas where the differences between vacc'd and non-vacc'd could be problems, I'm still not convinced it's an elephant.   

 

In any case, I think McDermott will get every player to the right place over the next month or two.   I'm not losing any sleep over it.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Peter King suggests in his column this morning that the vaccine issue is a particular concern in Buffalo.

 

Yep. While the "one of two teams not at the threshold" story has not been confirmed anywhere that I have seen I suspect it is true and that is why McDermott is trying to buy time with the "nobody speak about it" policy while they try and "educate" or persuade in actual fact players on the merits of having the vaccine.

[Bob in STL]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:24 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

He wasn't the only one who came across badly - a number of the reporters seemed to really struggle with the format and being ready with several concise, well-phrased open ended questions - but he certainly set a low for appearance. 

 

Though we're not supposed to judge folks by that I guess.

We can say this but let’s be honest, appearance matters until proven otherwise.  
 

I liked JW’s work and his posts here on TBD until recently.  I started to change my opinion on him when I saw how quickly he got agitated with certain posters and his willingness to do battle from the keyboard.  I thought he could rise above some of that stuff.  
 

Next, I saw him on the Zoom interviews and I was shocked.  The poor verbal communication skills aside, his unkept appearance at work, and on camera, tells me “I don’t care”.   Sorry , I’m old school and I’m sure some of my values sound dated to many here.  He is a veteran journalist, I expected more.   
 

I give him a pass on his first attempt to talk about the vaccine, even though Poyer respectfully requested not to discuss it.  His repeated bumbling and mumbling on the topic came off bad for him.   
 

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

Rest assured that if a key player winds up missing games because of not getting vaccinated, it will become an issue on the Bills or any other team.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm interested in you second paragraph.   I have read practically nothing (in part because the Bills have said practically nothing), but I've always assumed that the Bills didn't have a "reasonably large number of non-vaccinated players."   I've assumed that the Bills are pretty close to whatever the numbers are that would give them relief from the COVID rules.  I've assumed that because it isn't very logical to assume the Bills are far from the limit when thirty teams have gotten there easily.  Statistically speaking, the Bills would be an extraordinary outlier if they were far from the limit.  

 

Where is the information that 30 of 32 teams have "gotten there easily" as far as vaccinated players?

 

The information I have is that 30 of 32 teams have met the "90% vaccinated" standard for Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff (coaches, assistants, trainers, player engagement,  maybe scouts if they want field and locker room access).  The other 2 teams are at >85%.

 

I have not seen anything yet about

1) what the NFL's standard for vaccination of players to loosen restrictions will be

2) how many teams have met it.

 

The reason people believe that the Bills have a large number of non-vaccinated players is that a few weeks ago the Buffalo Fanatics crew, who have connections with a number of players, said that there were less than 10 vaccinated players on the Bills.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

We can say this but let’s be honest, appearance matters until proven otherwise.  
 

I liked JW’s work and his posts here on TBD until recently.  I started to change my opinion on him when I saw how quickly he got agitated with certain posters and his willingness to do battle from the keyboard.  I thought he could rise above some of that stuff.  
 

Next, I saw him on the Zoom interviews and I was shocked.  The poor verbal communication skills aside, his unkept appearance at work, and on camera, tells me “I don’t care”.   Sorry , I’m old school and I’m sure some of my values sound dated to many here.  He is a veteran journalist, I expected more.   
 

I give him a pass on his first attempt to talk about the vaccine, even though Poyer respectfully requested not to discuss it.  His repeated bumbling and mumbling on the topic came off bad for him.  

 

Yeah, let's just say that I don't think quarantine and the Zoom format of interviews were kind to JW.

[Shaw66]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The reason people believe that the Bills have a large number of non-vaccinated players is that a few weeks ago the Buffalo Fanatics crew, who have connections with a number of players, said that there were less than 10 vaccinated players on the Bills.

 

WOW!  If that's accurate then the Bills have a problem. 

 

I find that hard to believe,  but anything is possible. 

[RiotAct]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

WOW!  If that's accurate then the Bills have a problem. 

 

I find that hard to believe,  but anything is possible. 

I find that very hard to believe as well.  Figured the percentages on the team would reflect the area at large (65-70%).

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Yep. While the "one of two teams not at the threshold" story has not been confirmed anywhere that I have seen I suspect it is true and that is why McDermott is trying to buy time with the "nobody speak about it" policy while they try and "educate" or persuade in actual fact players on the merits of having the vaccine.

 

Beane made the point several times that where players or the team overall are concerned for relaxed protocols, "we don't know what the thresholds are" "we don't know what the thresholds will be".

 

This appears to confirm my contention that the 30 of 32 teams refers to the 90% vaccinated standard for Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff, and has nothing to do with how many players are vaccinated on different teams or a threshold for player vaccination in order to relax protocols, because the NFL has not yet released that information to the teams:

 

10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Where is the information that 30 of 32 teams have "gotten there easily" as far as vaccinated players?

 

The information I have is that 30 of 32 teams have met the "90% vaccinated" standard for Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff (coaches, assistants, trainers, player engagement,  maybe scouts if they want field and locker room access).  The other 2 teams are at >85%.

 

I have not seen anything yet about

1) what the NFL's standard for vaccination of players to loosen restrictions will be

2) how many teams have met it.

 

The reason people believe that the Bills have a large number of non-vaccinated players is that a few weeks ago the Buffalo Fanatics crew, who have connections with a number of players, said that there were less than 10 vaccinated players on the Bills.

 

I welcome links, quotes, etc correcting or refuting this.

 

 

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

WOW!  If that's accurate then the Bills have a problem.

I find that hard to believe,  but anything is possible. 

 

2 hours ago, RiotAct said:

I find that very hard to believe as well.  Figured the percentages on the team would reflect the area at large (65-70%).

 

I think the percentages on the team are more likely to match the areas where the players are from (S. Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Nebraska, etc.)

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Peter King suggests in his column this morning that the vaccine issue is a particular concern in Buffalo.

 

Is this what you're talking about?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/07/aaron-rodgers-packers-compromise-nfl-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw

Quote

• Where teams stand on the vaccine. This is an estimate, and only an estimate. But I’ve heard four to six teams have 60 or more players who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 on the 90-man roster, and about another 10 with at least 40 players vaccinated. To have a normal training camp, without limitations on in-person meetings and social gathering, teams will need approximately 85 percent (the presumed number the league will mandate) players vaccinated. That means 77 of 90 players will have had to be vaccinated by the end of July. As I reported last Monday, one team (as of May 28) had 65 players vaccinated, and there was confidence at the chance to get to 77 before late July.
 

But some teams—Buffalo most notably—seem to be having difficulty getting players to believe the vaccine is smart for them. I was surprised to read what Giants coach Joe Judge said about his approach to vaccinations with his players Friday: “Everyone has a choice to make, players. So that’s their decision. I’m not getting involved in that. Let them deal directly with the medical professionals.” Now, if Judge means he’s leaving all COVID-related advice in the hands of his medical and training staff, that’s understandable. But at some point, if the Giants aren’t at 85 percent, the coach needs to get involved.

 

It's unclear to me whether King has actual inside gouge on B'lo's "difficult conversations" or whether he's going by the pre-OTA twitting on Twitter by Rachel Bush/Cole Beasley etc.

 

From King's previous column:

Quote

That’s where the NFL is on a few fronts. One last thing, regarding Covid. As I have mentioned this spring, the NFL is likely to push for a rule this year that allows teams with Tier 1 and 2 employees (those who touch players, like coaches, trainers, equipment staff, etc.) that have X percent vaccinated, and, separately, X percent of players vaccinated to be able to return to 2019 protocols. Freedom, in other words. It could be 85 percent for each group; I’ve heard it could be higher for non-players and then 85 percent for players.

I asked one coach over the weekend about his team’s Covid situation. He was encouraging about it. He said 100 percent of his team’s Tier 1 and 2 staff had been vaccinated. And 65 of his 90 players have been vaccinated. That’s already 72 percent of the 90-man roster, and it’s only the end of May. He said what I’ve thought: Once players realize that being vaccinated will allow them the freedom to move around without masks, to be able to dine out with teammates and to not have to wake up early every morning to be tested, he thinks his team has a very good chance to be at 85 percent. This team would need 12 more players of the 25 currently not vaccinated to take the shot—and there’s seven weeks to get that done before training camp begins.

Two coaches mentioned this to me in the last couple of weeks: One very big motivator for players could be if the league keeps the 2020 rules in place for non-vaccinated players—to have to stay in the team’s city during the bye week and get up early each day to be tested, as they were in 2020. That’s likely to be a factor for players to take the shot.

 

If I were guessing, I would guess that team is probably the Seahawks.  They had strong  infection-control protocols in the league last year, with 0 players out with Covid all season (!!!!).   Russ Wilson hosted a television special "Roll Up Your Sleeves" in April, so they have at least some player leadership that is positive about vaccination.

 

But I don't know who Peter King's strongest contacts are.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Is this what you're talking about?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/07/aaron-rodgers-packers-compromise-nfl-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw

 

It's unclear to me whether King has actual inside gouge on B'lo's "difficult conversations" or whether he's going by the pre-OTA twitting on Twitter by Rachel Bush/Cole Beasley etc.

 

From King's previous column:

 

If I were guessing, I would guess that team is probably the Seahawks.  They had strong  infection-control protocols in the league last year, with 0 players out with Covid all season (!!!!).   Russ Wilson hosted a television special "Roll Up Your Sleeves" in April, so they have at least some player leadership that is positive about vaccination.

 

But I don't know who Peter King's strongest contacts are.

 

 

I don't know who King's contacts are either, but I would be very surprised if it were based just on a couple of tweets. I suspect he has at least had conversations with someone on the inside - be it a player or staff member - who was willing, off the record, to confirm his story. 

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Beane made the point several times that where players or the team overall are concerned for relaxed protocols, "we don't know what the thresholds are" "we don't know what the thresholds will be".

 

This appears to confirm my contention that the 30 of 32 teams refers to the 90% vaccinated standard for Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff, and has nothing to do with how many players are vaccinated on different teams or a threshold for player vaccination in order to relax protocols, because the NFL has not yet released that information to the teams.

 

 

Indeed. I listened to Beane's presser on the way to work this morning. I think it is reasonable, though not exact, to assume the players threshold will be similar. Off the top of my head I can't think of a reason why the science would suggest that threshold should be lower for players, so unless the NFL and the NFLPA are literally just plucking arbitrary numbers out of thin air then one could reasonably expect the threshold to be similar, no? I completely get Beane's point and don't disagree with it at all but there will be a working assumption within the building. I can't believe a team like the Bills as thorough as they are will just sit on their hands until the NFL gives them a number. 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

Whollleeee lot of speculation and rumor going on here.

 

I was on Twitter long enough to know Buffalo Fanatics is full of shcrap 

 

One the vaccines have FDA approval we will see if more people get them. 

[716er]

On 6/6/2021 at 4:08 PM, GunnerBill said:

During OTAs and mini camp to try and encourage take up before training camp where I suspect it is going to be much harder for them to shut up shop on the issue unless the NFL allows them to exceptionally restrict media access outside of the usual rules. Like I say, I have no issue at all with that as a strategy but the media are not obliged to just go along with it and indeed if they did they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly IMO. 

 

Indeed! It's going to be difficult to keep something in house that will be obvious to the media who attend practice. 

14 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Whollleeee lot of speculation and rumor going on here.

 

I was on Twitter long enough to know Buffalo Fanatics is full of shcrap 

 

One the vaccines have FDA approval we will see if more people get them. 

 

Peter King >>>>>>> Twitter clowns

[DrDawkinstein]

Would be interested to see if/how McD would answer this question, and if he would be as direct and forthcoming as Arians...

 

 

On 6/7/2021 at 8:03 PM, RiotAct said:

I find that very hard to believe as well.  Figured the percentages on the team would reflect the area at large (65-70%).

 

You have to look more at the specific demographic of the players. There has been a big struggle with convincing the mid-20s crowd to get vaccinated after they were told for the last year that they arent at major risk, and were forced back into schools as if there was no problem. Add in the fact that most NFL players are cocky and think they are completely indestructible, and live outside of normal consequences. edit: Add in the fact that most players get too much info from Twitter (per Ron Rivera), and that compounds the problem.

 

I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if we were even at 50% of players.

 

I'm guessing more like 30% at best.

Edited June 10, 2021 by DrDawkinstein

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Would be interested to see if/how McD would answer this question, and if he would be as direct and forthcoming as Arians...

 

 

 

Arians also said 85% is what we are shooting for. So while the league might not have formally confirmed the threshold it is not shrouded in mystery either.  

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Arians also said 85% is what we are shooting for. So while the league might not have formally confirmed the threshold it is not shrouded in mystery either.  

 

Absolutely. And to your point up-thread, we are going to know pretty quickly which teams have the problems and which dont, when a bunch of teams are having full practices and are back to normal while others are left at a disadvantage and not able to meet in person.

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Arians also said 85% is what we are shooting for. So while the league might not have formally confirmed the threshold it is not shrouded in mystery either.  

Did he say that or did you infer it from her tweet?

[DrDawkinstein]

 

Continuing the "news around the league" theme...

On 6/7/2021 at 8:03 PM, RiotAct said:

I find that very hard to believe as well.  Figured the percentages on the team would reflect the area at large (65-70%).

 

On 6/7/2021 at 10:59 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I think the percentages on the team are more likely to match the areas where the players are from (S. Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Nebraska, etc.)

 

 

 

Looks like WFT is still under 50%, and that's probably the norm.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

Says the guy who missed games with mono...

 

 

This is the unfortunate attitude I expect from players...

 

 

"I don’t see me treating Covid until I actually get Covid".. Brilliant...

[DrDawkinstein]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

You have to get a tetanus shot to get into college, I don't see why they can't require a COVID shot to play in the NFL.

 

NFLPA. That is the only reason why they cant. There is nothing legally from stopping them. Only the potential labor strike.

[teef]

14 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Says the guy who missed games with mono...

 

 

This is the unfortunate attitude I expect from players...

 

 

"I don’t see me treating Covid until I actually get Covid".. Brilliant...

oh my...