Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

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

I remember very clearly last season the NFLPA supporting a slow, measured return to football, which I personally thought was a good idea. That they would push back against mandatory vaccinations as you suggest seems incoherent.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I remember very clearly last season the NFLPA supporting a slow, measured return to football, which I personally thought was a good idea. That they would push back against mandatory vaccinations as you suggest seems incoherent.

 

Not really, when you realize the NFLPA's main stance and MO is to not agree to ANYTHING without getting something in return. Even if what they are originally being asked to agree to is in the best interest, and benefit to, the players. To the NFLPA, the NFL asking them to agree to require players to be vaccinated is seen as "the NFL league office simply trying to protect their business and brand by forcing players to inject chemicals into their bodies without their choice". And given the history, part of me doesnt blame them for thinking the NFL would rather "protect the shield" than prioritize player safety. It just so happens that this is a weird situation where the two arent mutually exclusive. So I'm sure the NFLPA would agree to mandating vaccinations... for a higher cut of revenue share, or for less OTAs, or for whatever else they want nowadays.

 

Additionally, the NFLPA supporting a slow return to football last year was because it meant players didnt have to go to OTAs and Camp. Not because it was the right thing to do.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by DrDawkinstein

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Not really, when you realize the NFLPA's main stance and MO is to not agree to ANYTHING without getting something in return. Even if what they are originally being asked to agree to is in the best interest, and benefit to, the players. To the NFLPA, the NFL asking them to agree to require players to be vaccinated is seen as "the NFL league office simply trying to protect their business and brand by forcing players to inject chemicals into their bodies without their choice". And given the history, part of me doesnt blame them for thinking the NFL would rather "protect the shield" than prioritize player safety. It just so happens that this is a weird situation where the two arent mutually exclusive. So I'm sure the NFLPA would agree to mandating vaccinations... for a higher cut of revenue share, or for less OTAs, or for whatever else they want nowadays.

Exactly. They have leverage in this process but I doubt that continued media coverage about NFL players' resistance to COVID vaccines is good business.

[nucci]

33 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...

How is he going about getting more facts?

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, nucci said:

How is he going about getting more facts?

 

We all know what that is code for at this point.

[nucci]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We all know what that is code for at this point.

Yep

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We all know what that is code for at this point.

 

At least these answers are better than what Gerrit Cole gave the other day about the sticky stuff.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

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

 

He said it. Last sentence on that clip "85%, that's what we're shooting at."

Edited June 10, 2021 by GunnerBill

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, nucci said:

How is he going about getting more facts?

 

Well at least this is in the right direction...

 

 

[Delete This Account]

On 6/3/2021 at 11:08 PM, Shaw66 said:

I think you seriously misunderstand the role of people who cover modern pro sports teams.   And you misunderstand the balance of power between the teams and players on one hand, and the writers, on the other.  

 

Wawrow isn't a journalist.  He is just a guy who produces content that the print or online sources use to attract readers.  He isn't an investigative journalist on some highly principled search for the truth.  He doesn't have to ask the tough questions to succeed at his job.  His bosses want him just to write something interesting about the team.  So long as readers like what he writes, Wawrow's bosses don't care at all if he's sucking up to the players and teams.  Peter King has made a fortune sucking up to Favre and Manning and Brady.   And they don't care if Wawrow is ahead of his fellow writers on a subject like the vaccine.   A scoop isn't worth very much, because all the other writers hear his questions and see what he writes, and if it has any legs, they all write it, too.  So there's no advantage to be out ahead of the other writers on an issue like this.   

 

The one way that a writer like Wawrow can make a name for himself, to set himself apart, is to have better access to the Bills than the average writer.  For example, it's a big deal for a guy like him to get a one-on-one interview with a player or players, and even better with McDermott or Beane.  A lengthy article about Poyer is worth a lot more to Wawrow's bosses than some paragraphs about the vaccine.  If Poyer is in the mood to do a one-on-one interview with someone, how likely do you think it is today that he'll give that interview to Wawrow?   Not very.   How likely is it that Frazier will choose Wawrow?  Not very, because Frazier wants to back his player.  If the players don't like you, they aren't giving you the stories.  

 

Look at Jay Skurski's interview with Trubisky in Buffalo News.  Do you think anyone on the Bills would sit down today with Wawrow to do an interview like that?

 

The plain dynamic at work here is that Wawrow needs the Bills a lot more than the Bills need Wawrow.  The sports media can always find another guy to write stories.  So when Wawrow keeps asking questions the Bills don't want to answer, when it's clear he's asking Poyer to talk about things that are not in Poyer's interest, Wawrow is putting at risk his ability to do his job.  

 

Is that what you think?

I just submitted a whole number of grafs on the Bills COVID-19 debate as asked by my bosses. As for me having access to Poyer, I'll have it come the start of training camp. If he talks to me or not, it doesn't mean I won't have access to him because I'll be in a setting where other reporters will ask questions, some of whom might even ask the questions I'd like to ask.

My job is quite secure, which might come as a surprise to you and all this mularkey you're posting here. I've overcome a few people, even Tom Donahoe not talking to me for his last season. Here's the thing. I'm confident in the relationships that I've built and the reputation I've developed in being fair.

You seem to think that it's my job to be a pom-pom carrier to root, root, root for the home team. It's never been that way. And players, coaches and the Bills media department has always respected that.

You'd be surprised at how many more people I've been able to speak to based on the questions I've asked, and not matter who seems to put off by them.

 

But, obviously, you know better. (you don't. but feel free to live in that world, bubba).

 

ADD:

 

Also: this whole thing about me not being an investigative journalist. I'm a newswriter, having covered everything murders to entertainment and was first AP writer on the scene of the Clarence Center plane crash.

As for news stories I've helped break, some might remember my coverage of the Kevin Everett's injury, in which The AP was the first to get a story that he was going to survive, and first to get an interview with his mother.

Of course, some might also remember The AP's coverage on the Bills sale in 2014.

 

Stop me if this flies in the face of your ill-conceived narrative. But I think I've earned my place here on this board and coverage in this community to have it questioned by some slapdick as yourself.

 

jw

Edited July 26, 2021 by john wawrow

[Delete This Account]

The only reason I haven't replied to this topic, by the way, is I just happened to be out of town for five weeks being assigned to cover the Stanley Cup playoffs in Canada. I guess, my bosses have enough faith in me to do so, besides what some here might say.

 

smfh

[eball]

5 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

The only reason I haven't replied to this topic, by the way, is I just happened to be out of town for five weeks being assigned to cover the Stanley Cup playoffs in Canada. I guess, my bosses have enough faith in me to do so, besides what some here might say.

 

smfh

 

Glad to hear from you JW.  I hope you can get us some valid info on how the Beasley (and now Feliciano) issues are potentially impacting the Bills’ locker room in our most anticipated season in nearly 30 years.

 

[Delete This Account]

6 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Glad to hear from you JW.  I hope you can get us some valid info on how the Beasley (and now Feliciano) issues are potentially impacting the Bills’ locker room in our most anticipated season in nearly 30 years.

 

 

We'll find out more on Wednesday, when the Bills are first set to speak. I'm expecting them to circle the wagons on the issue, which is really all they can do. But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June.

Alas, you won't have the pleasure or pain (pick one, don't care) of having me there asking questions that day as I'll be tied up handling NHL free agency. I'll get there at some point.

But those expecting not to hear questions about COVID, given what's gone on, are mistaken, especially when Cole Beasley is made available.

 

jw

 

[CommonCents]

I’d like this season to be about football not the off the field drama. Maybe I’m in the minority but I hope all the players and coaches get on the same page and stomp out KC, Tampa and whoever else rises to the top.

 

The sooner the better.  Go Bills. I can’t think of much worse things sports wise than a fractured Bills team losing to Tua and Cam Newton. No freaking way. Sit down and get it together. 

[Shaw66]

49 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

Is that what you think?

I just submitted a whole number of grafs on the Bills COVID-19 debate as asked by my bosses. As for me having access to Poyer, I'll have it come the start of training camp. If he talks to me or not, it doesn't mean I won't have access to him because I'll be in a setting where other reporters will ask questions, some of whom might even ask the questions I'd like to ask.

My job is quite secure, which might come as a surprise to you and all this mularkey you're posting here. I've overcome a few people, even Tom Donahoe not talking to me for his last season. Here's the thing. I'm confident in the relationships that I've built and the reputation I've developed in being fair.

You seem to think that it's my job to be a pom-pom carrier to root, root, root for the home team. It's never been that way. And players, coaches and the Bills media department has always respected that.

You'd be surprised at how many more people I've been able to speak to based on the questions I've asked, and not matter who seems to put off by them.

 

But, obviously, you know better. (you don't. but feel free to live in that world, bubba).

 

ADD:

 

Also: this whole thing about me not being an investigative journalist. I'm a newswriter, having covered everything murders to entertainment and was first AP writer on the scene of the Clarence Center plane crash.

As for news stories I've helped break, some might remember my coverage of the Kevin Everett's injury, in which The AP was the first to get a story that he was going to survive, and first to get an interview with his mother.

Of course, some might also remember The AP's coverage on the Bills sale in 2014.

 

Stop me if this flies in the face of your ill-conceived narrative. But I think I've earned my place here on this board and coverage in this community to have it questioned by some slapdick as yourself.

 

jw

JW -

 

Thanks for responding.  I appreciate it.  I do apologize for my tone.  It was unfair to you.

 

[Delete This Account]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

JW -

 

Thanks for responding.  I appreciate it.  I do apologize for my tone.  It was unfair to you.

 

 

Thanks. It sure was.

Apology accepted.

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

JW -

 

Thanks for responding.  I appreciate it.  I do apologize for my tone.  It was unfair to you.

 

 

 

@john wawrowsure put you in your place.   You got both Bubba'd and Slapdick'd.....and it apparently passed inspection.   Good on you for being the more gracious gentleman.   

[716er]

4 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

But those expecting not to hear questions about COVID, given what's gone on, are mistaken, especially when Cole Beasley is made available.

 

jw

 

 

Thanks for the effort here, JW. I think I speak for most in saying thanks for the coverage over the years and providing balanced insight. 

 

In regards to the quoted point, will un-vaxxed players be subject to the media in the same way the vaxxed ones are?

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, john wawrow said:

The only reason I haven't replied to this topic, by the way, is I just happened to be out of town for five weeks being assigned to cover the Stanley Cup playoffs in Canada. I guess, my bosses have enough faith in me to do so, besides what some here might say.

 

smfh

 

I tried defending your corner in your absence jw. Beat reporting for pro-sports teams with rabid fan bases is not easy. I lasted one year. You have my respect and personally I always find your reporting of the Bills fair. It isn't up to the Bills to decide what is news and what isn't. They are entitled to circle the wagons on any issue they choose - including this one - but that does not mean the media shouldn't seek out stories where they exist just because the Bills would prefer they didn't. 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I tried defending your corner in your absence jw. 

And you did your usual excellent job.  Taught me some things. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Returning the convo to the original subject

 

[LeGOATski]

21 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

We'll find out more on Wednesday, when the Bills are first set to speak. I'm expecting them to circle the wagons on the issue, which is really all they can do. But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June.

Alas, you won't have the pleasure or pain (pick one, don't care) of having me there asking questions that day as I'll be tied up handling NHL free agency. I'll get there at some point.

But those expecting not to hear questions about COVID, given what's gone on, are mistaken, especially when Cole Beasley is made available.

 

jw

 

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

[Delete This Account]

17 hours ago, 716er said:

 

Thanks for the effort here, JW. I think I speak for most in saying thanks for the coverage over the years and providing balanced insight. 

 

In regards to the quoted point, will un-vaxxed players be subject to the media in the same way the vaxxed ones are?

 

That's a good question. We are getting player availability once camp opens tomorrow. Media are required to be vaccinated and have passed a COVID test in order to have access. It hasn't been made clear if the players are required to be vaccinated. That said, those who are unvaxed are required to take daily COVID tests so I'm assuming they will be made available to us.

15 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

 

Sure. The issue just magically disappears, just like COVID was supposed to by Easter 2020. Grow up.

[LeGOATski]

13 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

Sure. The issue just magically disappears, just like COVID was supposed to by Easter 2020. Grow up.

I guess you don't subscribe to the notion that it's not much of an issue and won't affect the locker room. However, the players (Cole & Hughes, and others involved) seem to be putting aside their differences and getting ready for football.

 

I understand you're on the defensive here, but my take is not irrational.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, LeGOATski said:

I guess you don't subscribe to the notion that it's not much of an issue and won't affect the locker room. However, the players (Cole & Hughes, and others involved) seem to be putting aside their differences and getting ready for football.

 

I understand you're on the defensive here, but my take is not irrational.

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

I didn't say they shouldn't ask about it.

But, like Wawrow says, they'll circle the wagons on the issue. It's incorrect to say it's difficult to suggest they're focused on football now and will tighten up leaks. They can suggest it and totally do it.

[Delete This Account]

18 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

[LeGOATski]

1 minute ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

You quoted the wrong person, but fair enough. Let's see how much of a distraction it is when the season is underway. 

 

We'll circle back to this.

 

We already know the angle you're going to take, regardless.

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:

You quoted the wrong person, but fair enough. Let's see how much of a distraction it is when the season is underway. 

 

We'll circle back to this.

 

We already know the angle you're going to take, regardless.

 

1. I'm not going to be there tomorrow and instead covering NHL free agency.

2. It's the angle because the players and the team, based on their comments and outbursts, have made this this angle.

3. I would be disappointed in my colleagues if they didn't ask these questions.

4. People thinking this isn't an issue can put their hands on their ears and yell "lalalalalalal," as much as they like. It's still there.

 

jw

Edited July 27, 2021 by john wawrow

[teef]

i'm just excited i learned a new word...slapdick.  i'm going to use this in conversation with my wife later, but i'm definitely not going to use it properly.

[LeGOATski]

3 hours ago, teef said:

i'm just excited i learned a new word...slapdick.  i'm going to use this in conversation with my wife later, but i'm definitely not going to use it properly.

Is it possible to have a slapdick emoji as a reaction button on here?

[Shaw66]

lalalalalala

[JoPoy88]

6 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

well no you miss an pretty important fact - JW said that because Allen and others said it was buttoned up and handled “inside the team” back in OTAs or whenever he addressed it. Between then and now? Multiple Beasley meltdowns on twitter. So what Allen said didn’t really hold for Beasley did it (or Hughes, or Feliciano, for that matter.) 

 

I do think you are right that once camp starts they’ll be saying less about this, but the whole point was why are reporters being shut down trying to ask questions when some players just turn around and go on the offensive about Covid stuff?

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

lalalalalala

great contribution 🙄. Very unlike you in all honesty. Take the L on this one and move on you post to excellent stuff almost all the time.

Edited July 28, 2021 by JoPoy88

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not on the defensive at all. not sure why you even have to intend to inject that unless it's because you don't feel comfortable with your position being called out. these things do not die down especially given the attention being placed on the issue in Buffalo and elsewhere.

there are concerns inside the organization that this issue will prove divisive and become a distraction. already, for the first time in McDermott's tenure, players are openly going against his team-first wishes in regards to vaccinations.

unless players resolve this by getting vaccinated  and meeting NFL protocol minimum thresholds, this will remain an open issue, whether you like it or not.

 

I've got you down for not. but life's life.

 

John, 

What are “NFL minimum thresholds” and what impact does meeting them have?  I can’t keep up

 

Thanks

[LeGOATski]

24 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

well no you miss an pretty important fact - JW said that because Allen and others said it was buttoned up and handled “inside the team” back in OTAs or whenever he addressed it. Between then and now? Multiple Beasley meltdowns on twitter. So what Allen said didn’t really hold for Beasley did it (or Hughes, or Feliciano, for that matter.) 

 

I do think you are right that once camp starts they’ll be saying less about this, but the whole point was why are reporters being shut down trying to ask questions when some players just turn around and go on the offensive about Covid stuff?

I didn't miss that. The players and coaches will probably give a similar answer in the next press conference. I wouldn't take them less seriously now just because one guy slipped up and caused a stir. Writers will spin it whichever way they want until the season starts...or finishes...and we see the results.

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I don't agree with this take. Now that they're back in camp, they can say they're solely focused on football and McDermott can lock in Beasley's focus after they personally talk, reestablishing the "in house" protocol.

 

The atmosphere at camp is totally different than on Twitter. Writing a speculative piece on it only serves the purpose of keeping the drama going.

 

Great for reporters. Bad for the team.

 

I don't think it would be fair to call any piece on the risk this poses to harmony as speculative. Indeed I think the speculation here is your first para above... that McDermott can just click his fingers and re-establish a party line. 

 

Beasley basically tweeted the other day that he would not have abided by that line had he been made available to media in the spring. So who is to say he suddenly will now?

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Warcodered said:

It kind of is, sure maybe things get clamped down in camp and it becomes essentially nothing, but the possibility of that happening in no way means people shouldn't ask about. Especially as all signs so far point to Beasley struggling to keep this to himself.

 

Beasley himself said when there was reference by a media member to the approach players made available to the media in the spring took "well I wasn't made available". 

 

I don't think he would have toed the party line in spring on the basis of those comments had he been put infront of the media. It is hope and speculation that he suddenly will now.

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

John, 

What are “NFL minimum thresholds” and what impact does meeting them have?  I can’t keep up

 

Thanks

 

The NFL as I understand it has still not come out formally on the threshold but multiple NFL teams have acknowledged the 85% number over the spring and summer (the Bears GM yesterday being the latest). That hasn't come from nowhere. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by GunnerBill

[LeGOATski]

55 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think it would be fair to call any piece on the risk this poses to harmony as speculative. Indeed I think the speculation here is your first para above... that McDermott can just click his fingers and re-establish a party line. 

 

Beasley basically tweeted the other day that he would not have abided by that line had he been made available to media in the spring. So who is to say he suddenly will now?

I would argue that there was never a party line, unless you call focusing on football a party line. What McDermott needs to do is more like controlling a narrative. He can easily do that and get these guys to focus on football.

 

Two questions:

1. Will they make Beasley available to the media?

2. Does Beasley even want to speak to the media?

 

I assume both are a no.

 

This is the take I bolded in the original comment and the only thing I've been arguing is incorrect:

 

"But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June."

 

Don't be surprised when they do both: focus on football and keep it in house.

 

And if he can't, Beasley gets cut. It would suck, but the ship isn't changing course for one player. His actions regarding the protocol are the big issue, but it's a pretty straightforward one.

 

Also don't be surprised if one of our respected journalists still writes a speculative article about the turbulence under the surface...

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

I would argue that there was never a party line, unless you call focusing on football a party line. What McDermott needs to do is more like controlling a narrative. He can easily do that and get these guys to focus on football.

 

Two questions:

1. Will they make Beasley available to the media?

2. Does Beasley even want to speak to the media?

 

I assume both are a no.

 

This is the take I bolded in the original comment and the only thing I've been arguing is incorrect:

 

"But it's difficult for them to suggest they're keeping it in house based on the back and forth that happened this weekend. It's might be even more difficult to say they're solely focused on football, as Poyer insisted in June."

 

Don't be surprised when they do both: focus on football and keep it in house.

 

And if he can't, Beasley gets cut. It would suck, but the ship isn't changing course for one player. His actions regarding the protocol are the big issue, but it's a pretty straightforward one.

 

Also don't be surprised if one of our respected journalists still writes a speculative article about the turbulence under the surface...

 

You can argue what you like but there was very clearly a party line in spring. Equally the Bills can "control the narrative" ie. spin all they like but they cannot tell you with a straight face they are keeping it in house. 

 

The beat reporters would not be doing their jobs if they didn't keep asking the question when you have had a summer full of public twitter outbursts.

 

You seem to be under the apprehension that if the Bills say "nothing to see here" the media should just accept it. That ain't the way it works. There is a story there. They need to keep going for it. It is very literally their job. 

[LeGOATski]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You can argue what you like but there was very clearly a party line in spring. Equally the Bills can "control the narrative" ie. spin all they like but they cannot tell you with a straight face they are keeping it in house. 

 

The beat reporters would not be doing their jobs if they didn't keep asking the question when you have had a summer full of public twitter outbursts.

 

You seem to be under the apprehension that if the Bills say "nothing to see here" the media should just accept it. That ain't the way it works. There is a story there. They need to keep going for it. It is very literally their job. 

A party line is an official stance. It's not possible to have an official stance in this situation. "Focusing on football" and "keeping it in house" are deflections, not party lines. Deflection is their method for controlling the narrative. Just making that clear.

 

I don't think it will be hard for them to start deflecting again.

 

I've never said reporters shouldn't ask questions. I don't think they should ask stupid ones, but it's not a perfect world...

 

The state of the Bills is still to be determined now that they're all back together. I'm not advising against a wait-and-see approach, but my problem since this thread resurfaced is that Wawrow's comments indicate some reporters will push a certain angle, regardless of the answer they get. 

 

They won't see it until they believe it...as Mahomes so elegantly put.

 

I believe we're already seeing the Bills come back together and starting to gel again...