Jump to content

Jordan Poyer Interview - OTAs June 2, 2021


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, eball said:

 

Horrible take.  You don’t know jack-schitt about JW, and he’s anything but a “hack.”  If you’re not still concerned about getting our country and the world to herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated, and you’re ignoring science, you’ve got your head in the sand.  These dumb takes are akin to the “players shouldn’t talk politics, only football” neanderthal mindset.  Football is a GAME.  There are much more important issues in life.


Did you listen to the interview? Did you hear Jordan’s statement before he took any question? The players and the team have specifically said they will Not talk about that topic and I think that’s great. Hopefully people here can do the same and stick to foootball.. and yesI think JW is a hack.. He has proven to be one over the course of this year IMHO. Let’s all move on from this non football issue. 
 

 

Edited by wppete
  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't agree at all that John Wawrow is a "hack".    I would say that the video interview format hasn't been kind to him; he seems to struggle to frame and ask concise open-ended questions

As a former journalist I think it is absolutely the job of reporters to ask tough questions. It is not the job of reporters to ask players the questions they want to answer. The vaccine issue is a tou

JW is not a click bait reporter. He works for AP and is poster on TSW.   I believe you are reading into it what you want to or are trying to start argument here.

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

My biggest thing with Wawrow is his questions are always like this. Yes he particularly stammered because he tip toed trying to get an answer without pissing Poyer off , but his questions are always excessively long winded and too descriptive as if he is trying to get a player to go a certain direction.

 

Half the time when he asks a question about halfway through I’m like get to the point already and stop talking. No one in The Bills media is anywhere close to as long winded with questions. 
 

I can’t be the only one who notices this. People will also defend him in this thread solely because he gets on these boards from time to time with his viewpoints which people will obviously still want

Edited by gonzo1105
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I mean, some of you are saying “it’s not a football issue” and then going into the ways it actually is of consequence to teams and the league. Seems a little contradictory.

 

The vaccine questions aren’t directly to the game on-field, yes. But the league is clearly setting different standards for teams based on whether or not the team meets the vaccination threshold. Those standards affect things like practice, meetings, mobility within team facilities, etc. Those things DO affect the team and can indirectly affect on-field performance; Brandon Beane has admitted this himself. So it kinda is a football issue and seems like it should be okay for media to ask questions about it.

Edited by JoPoy88
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gonzo1105 said:

My biggest thing with Wawrow is his questions are always like this. Yes he particularly stammered because he tip toed trying to get an answer without pissing Poyer off , but his questions are always excessively long winded and too descriptive as if he is trying to get a player to go a certain direction.

 

Half the time when he asks a question about halfway through I’m like get to the point already and stop talking. No one in The Bills media is anywhere close to as long winded with questions. 
 

I can’t be the only one who notices this

Couldn't agree more, was going to point this out, but I know Wawrow reads this board & he seems like a good dude......but damn it's rough listening to him try and spit a coherent ? Out.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Man that was rough.  You can tell Jordan doesnt dig this end of the job but was still upbeat and courteous.  That headshake at Wawrow made me laugh though.  Talk about killing any trust with a player, especially to get a non answer, not smart.  Thank God for Sal, and Jordans demeanor said it all, like thank God Sal can help me save this interview.  Hes liked alot, a players journalist!  Thats why hell always get the best interviews and information from the players. I just cant see burning a player to get a Belichek non answer was worth it.

Edited by BillsShredder83
  • Agree 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eball said:

 

Horrible take.  You don’t know jack-schitt about JW, and he’s anything but a “hack.”  If you’re not still concerned about getting our country and the world to herd immunity by getting everyone vaccinated, and you’re ignoring science, you’ve got your head in the sand.  These dumb takes are akin to the “players shouldn’t talk politics, only football” neanderthal mindset.  Football is a GAME.  There are much more important issues in life.

Sure, players can talk about any issue they want, but that doesn't mean they MUST talk about any issue the press wants them to.  This coach and these players have decided they aren't talking about the vaccinations.   It's a personal issue about individuals' health and/or politics, and there is no reason they have to talk about it to the sports media.  

 

And just because some guy may not be available in October because he got COVID doesn't change anything.   If the team discovers today that the guy has a heart condition that may affect his availability in October, that doesn't mean the team tells the press.  It's a personal health decision, and it's confidential information.  

 

Might the fact that some guys on the team haven't gotten vaccinated affect the team in some way in October?   Sure.  So might any one of a hundred other decisions players make affect the team in October.   That doesn't mean that the players or the team are required to talk to the press about every one of those decisions, especially those decisions that are personal.  

 

  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wppete said:


Did you listen to the interview? Did you hear Jordan’s statement before he took any question? The players and the team have specifically said they will Not talk about that topic and I think that’s great. Hopefully people here can do the same and stick to foootball.. and yesI think JW is a hack.. He has proven to be one over the course of this year IMHO. Let’s all move on from this non football issue. 
 

 

 

Full disclosure -- I did not.  I hate all of these interviews and rarely watch them.  My post was a defense of somebody calling Wawrow a "hack."

 

Agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Full disclosure -- I did not.  I hate all of these interviews and rarely watch them.  My post was a defense of somebody calling Wawrow a "hack."

 

Agree to disagree.


simon cowell facepalm GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Full disclosure -- I did not.  I hate all of these interviews and rarely watch them.  My post was a defense of somebody calling Wawrow a "hack."

 

Agree to disagree.

I dont think hes a hack, just a hack question.  I like the dude and appreciate his threads/posts when they pop up, just not his finest work. Cmon JW, were pulling for ya

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gonzo1105 said:

My biggest thing with Wawrow is his questions are always like this. Yes he particularly stammered because he tip toed trying to get an answer without pissing Poyer off , but his questions are always excessively long winded and too descriptive as if he is trying to get a player to go a certain direction.

 

Half the time when he asks a question about halfway through I’m like get to the point already and stop talking. No one in The Bills media is anywhere close to as long winded with questions. 
 

I can’t be the only one who notices this. People will also defend him in this thread solely because he gets on these boards from time to time with his viewpoints which people will obviously still want

 

This first part, Yeah.   It's not new either - when pressers were in person and McD came to town he would actually respond to John "what is the question?" or "I'm sorry, I'm trying to get you a good answer, I'm not clear on the question?" 

 

But IMO it got worse with Zoom pressers.  Us old curmugeons have trouble with new technology and IMO it took JW's tendency to ramble with his own thoughts instead of asking an open-ended question to new depths.

 

I think you're mistaken about "People will also defend him in this thread solely because he gets on these boards from time to time with his viewpoints" though.  I for one respect John's body of work over the years and consider him a journalist of serious chops who does good stuff.   Especially during the drought when so many became truly jaded and, basically IMO, toxic in their negativity towards the team (we probably know who I'm talking about here) Wawrow stood out.  And he still writes good balanced pieces.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

I don't know what wawrow asked, but why do the Bills just not have to answer questions about the vaccine? Aren't they 1 of only 2 teams that have to operate under restricted conditions because they don't meet the threshold for having enough vaccinated players?

 

I'm not saying they need to talk about who is who isn't vaccinated, but I think questions about them being under the restrictions because of it is fair game to all of the players, coaches and staff. 

 

I haven't paid too much attention so hopefully someone can fill me on what the protocol restrictions are.. where the Bills are at..

 

So apparently the team has agreed, as a team, to keep their vaccination discussions in house and not answer questions about them.

 

I think that's their right.

 

I've read this 1 of 2 teams thing, and I'm very curious - anyone got the source on that?

 

The protocol restrictions were posted in a thread titled something like "New NFL/NFLPA Protocol something something"

 

Edit: looping back on this.  I found this article:

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-updates-covid-19-protocols-fully-vaccinated-players-largely-returning-to-pre

So the 30 of 32 teams applies to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 personnel being >90% vaccinated, nothing about players.

It says the remaining 2 teams are currently at 85% Tier 1 and Tier 2 vaccinated.

 

I can't find anywhere where it says which are the 2 teams at 85%.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I think there are tough questions and then there are tough questions.  

 

This whole vaccine thing is not a football issue.   It's an issue that the press thinks they can turn into controversial headlines, so they pursue it.   Does it matter how many players are vaccinated?  Yes, in some sense, because it affects the rules that govern how the team can practice.   But think about it - during the 2020 season, how many times did the press ask McDermott whether the June COVID-19 rules affected the outcome of last week's game?   Never.   The vaccine issue will have about as much impact on the season as how many reps Basham is getting this week.   It's just a non-issue.   Sure, JW can make up some BS why this is an important issue affecting the future of the team, but that's just BS.   There are literally hundreds of operation issues decided every month; not every decision is ideal.   You do the best you can and move on.  

 

Then there are tough questions, like "why did you decide to punt on 4th and one with three minutes left?" or "why didn't you run for the first down instead of throwing the INT in the third quarter?"   Those are tough questions - somebody made a mistake, and the press asks the guy to talk about it.  

 

The team has been clear about what it's doing about the vaccine issue, and clear particularly that they're keeping the discussions about the issue strictly in-house.   Questions to the players in the face of that clarity are just attempts to bait the player into saying something that will make a headline.  Now, if the team says "we aren't talking publicly about how we feel about last week's loss," okay, that's outside the ordinary rules of team-press relations.   But not talking about the vaccine is a completely understandable and justifiable position to take.  

 

I respectfully disagree that the vaccine thing is not a "football issue".  The NFL and NFLPA have issued protocols that vaccinated and non-vaccinated players need to follow. 

 

I respect the Bills and Poyer's decision as a team to keep discussions in-house and not address them in the media, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue that will affect the team (ie a football issue) this upcoming season and fair game for a journalist question.

 

I don't "get" the take that it's BS.  The NFL and NFLPA have agreed on rules which make it not BS.  People may disagree with their rules, but they are what they are.

 

As I said elsewhere, if both Allen and Mahomes are exposed to Covid a few days before we play KC, and the publically "vaccinated in April" Mahomes is available when we play while Allen is quarantined (per NFL/NFLPA rules) and not available, that would be far from a BS non issue with regard to football.  It differs from a random circumstance like an injury, in that it's an outcome the player can control.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish we can respect the players wishes, leave this subject alone and focus on the topics Jordan talked about regarding football and on the field topics. Take the vaccine topic to the politics forum would be the best for everyone where they can talk freely and just focus on Football here. IMHO. 

  • Eyeroll 3
  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wppete said:

Wish we can respect the players wishes, leave this subject alone and focus on the topics Jordan talked about regarding football and on the field topics. Take the vaccine topic to the politics forum would be the best for everyone where they can talk freely and just focus on Football here. IMHO. 

 

If it's football-relevant, then discussion focused on the football aspect - football impacts etc - is considered on-topic here.  It Is How It Is.

This and threads like the Chung thread or Deshawn Watson thread are always the most difficult threads to moderate because there's obvious judgement involved in making that call, what's focused discussion and what's general.

 

My best advice is to folks who have trouble seeing a line between football-focused and general discussion, is "stay out of these threads".

 

Sorry.

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People asked what Poyer said.  I found this in a Mark Gaughan article on TBN:

Quote

Safety Jordan Poyer opened his media call by stating: “Real quick, before we start, I'm not going to be answering questions about vaccines. So if you guys can direct your questions all to football, I would love to answer them. All respect. I appreciate it.”

Asked how Covid protocols might affect training camp if it is held in Rochester, Poyer said: “I'm just not answering any questions that have anything to do with vaccines. And I understand. ... I like camp at St. John Fisher. I like camp here. They're two totally different places. Camp here, you get all the facility. Camp there, you obviously get the camaraderie with the guys staying. But at the end of the day, that's not my decision to make.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I respectfully disagree that the vaccine thing is not a "football issue".  The NFL and NFLPA have issued protocols that vaccinated and non-vaccinated players need to follow. 

 

I respect the Bills and Poyer's decision as a team to keep discussions in-house and not address them in the media, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue that will affect the team (ie a football issue) this upcoming season and fair game for a journalist question.

 

I don't "get" the take that it's BS.  The NFL and NFLPA have agreed on rules which make it not BS.  People may disagree with their rules, but they are what they are.

 

As I said elsewhere, if both Allen and Mahomes are exposed to Covid a few days before we play KC, and the publically "vaccinated in April" Mahomes is available when we play while Allen is quarantined (per NFL/NFLPA rules) and not available, that would be far from a BS non issue with regard to football.  It differs from a random circumstance like an injury, in that it's an outcome the player can control.

If Allen sprains his ankle at home the week of the Chiefs game, of course, it's an issue - in October.   Whether Allen is maintaining his house in an unsafe condition in June is not an issue.    Nobody's asking Allen this week about whether he has had his house inspected for unsafe conditions.  

 

Yes, the NFL has rules COVID.  The Bills are following them.  Might the Bills have more flexibility if some players were making different choices about their own healthcare?   Yes.  Might that impact the outcome of a game in the season?  Yes.  The Bills have disclosed all that, and they've said that they aren't going to talk more about it.   That's their choice. 

 

The NFL has rules about how much players can be compensated.   The Bills are following them.  Might the Bills have more flexibility if some players were making different choices about when and how much they get paid?  Yes.  Might the fact that some players aren't willing to take a pay cut impact the outcome of a game in the season?   Yes.  The Bills have disclosed all that, and they've said they aren't going to talk more about contract negotiations.   When some reporter asks how the negotiations are going to extend Allen, Beane politely says he's not going to talk about that.  When they ask Allen, he says that's for his agent to handle.   Nobody complains that the Bills aren't being forthcoming about Allen's contract.  

 

The press is in the business of getting people to look at what they write or broadcast.  That's how they make money.  During the football season, the football writers have plenty to write about.   In the off-season, they don't.  Their job in the off-season is to find things that attract and capture the attention of the people.   Some writers have decided that they might capture attention over this vaccination issue.  They're writing about the vaccination issue instead of whether Allen should give a hometown discount only because they think it will be easier to get someone to say something that will excite fans when they read it.  

 

Think about how disrespectful Wawrow's behavior is.   The Bills say we're not talking about this issue.  Poyer opens his press conference by saying he's not going to talk about the issue.  Wawrow then says, "I know you're not going to talk about the issue, but maybe you'll answer a question about the issue."   What the heck?   Wawrow doesn't say to Allen, "Well, I know you aren't talking about the issue, but would you be willing to take $5 million less per year if it would help the team?"  

 

Now, in Wawrow's defense, he wasn't obnoxious about it.  He didn't lecture Poyer about why Poyer should answer his questions.   Wawrow just gave it the old college try.   I don't fault him for that.   You just have to wonder what part of "we aren't going to talk about it" he doesn't understand.  

  • Disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

If Allen sprains his ankle at home the week of the Chiefs game, of course, it's an issue - in October.   Whether Allen is maintaining his house in an unsafe condition in June is not an issue.    Nobody's asking Allen this week about whether he has had his house inspected for unsafe conditions.  

 

Shaw, again with all respect, and not wanting to flog a horse, but these are just faulty analogies.

 

For one, see the point I made above: "It differs from a random circumstance like an injury, in that it's (whether or not vaccinated) an outcome the player can control."

 

For two, preventive measures like vaccines against disease require time to be effective.  So just being vaccinated and able to be available to the team and avoid quarantine upon exposure, requires prior action. I'm not going to go down the road of explaining exactly why it is and should be a question leading up to training camp, rather than one that defers into the season, as that would fall into the category of "general discussion".

 

Quote

 

Yes, the NFL has rules COVID.  The Bills are following them.  Might the Bills have more flexibility if some players were making different choices about their own healthcare?   Yes.  Might that impact the outcome of a game in the season?  Yes.  The Bills have disclosed all that, and they've said that they aren't going to talk more about it.   That's their choice. 

 

No one, including myself as stated explicitly and repeatedly, is arguing that it's not their choice to not answer questions.

 

The point is, because of the NFL/NFLPA agreements impacting how players meet, train, and whether or not they quarantine, it impacts football.  You even seem to be acknowledging that above.  So why is a question about it somehow "out of bounds" and not football related? 

 

It seems to me it's fair game for the press to ask, and for the players not to answer.

 

Quote

The NFL has rules about how much players can be compensated.   The Bills are following them.  Might the Bills have more flexibility if some players were making different choices about when and how much they get paid?  Yes.  Might the fact that some players aren't willing to take a pay cut impact the outcome of a game in the season?   Yes.  The Bills have disclosed all that, and they've said they aren't going to talk more about contract negotiations.   When some reporter asks how the negotiations are going to extend Allen, Beane politely says he's not going to talk about that.  When they ask Allen, he says that's for his agent to handle.   Nobody complains that the Bills aren't being forthcoming about Allen's contract.  

 

This seems to me to be a very apt analogy.  The Bills, and Allen, have a right to not answer questions about contract negotiations and Allen's contract.

 

But no one is complaining, as you are here, that those questions they aren't football related and shouldn't be asked, or that it's "disrespectful" to ask them.  They ARE football related, and it's part of the reporter's job to see if he can get something on the topic.

 

Quote

Think about how disrespectful Wawrow's behavior is.   The Bills say we're not talking about this issue.  Poyer opens his press conference by saying he's not going to talk about the issue.  Wawrow then says, "I know you're not going to talk about the issue, but maybe you'll answer a question about the issue."   What the heck?   Wawrow doesn't say to Allen, "Well, I know you aren't talking about the issue, but would you be willing to take $5 million less per year if it would help the team?"  

 

Now, in Wawrow's defense, he wasn't obnoxious about it.  He didn't lecture Poyer about why Poyer should answer his questions.   Wawrow just gave it the old college try.   I don't fault him for that.   You just have to wonder what part of "we aren't going to talk about it" he doesn't understand.  

 

We'll just have to disagree here.  I don't think Wawrow's behavior was disrespectful at all.  He had an angle that he didn't think fell into the exact category Poyer said he wouldn't talk about, he gave it a try, Poyer said essentially "nope, falls into the category of stuff I'm not going to talk about", the interview moved on.

 

It seems to me that various reporters have asked, not the specific $$, but "would you be open to taking a team friendly contract?" type question, and Allen has appropriately refused to get into it.  But I don't hear people claiming those questions "arent football related" or aren't appropriate, because they are.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Shaw, again with all respect, and not wanting to flog a horse, but these are just faulty analogies.

 

 

So I'll ask you the same question said Wawrow should ask himself:   What part of "we're not going to talk about it" don't you understand?  Teams and players set ground rules for press conferences all the time.   The Bills have set theirs.  

 

You and I can discuss the significance of the vaccine to football operations all day long.   I get that.  But Wawrow is being stupid if he doesn't realize that his access to the Bills is going to become more limited if he persists in pushing issues the Bills don't want to talk about.   Sullivan lost his job because he couldn't see the obvious.   Wawrow ought to know better.  

Edited by Shaw66
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't agree at all that John Wawrow is a "hack". 

 

I would say that the video interview format hasn't been kind to him; he seems to struggle to frame and ask concise open-ended questions and I swear to God he was showing up on-camera in Zoom interviews in his bathrobe and a torn undershirt at times last season.

 

 

One viewpoint on journalism is that it's a journalist's responsibility to ask "tough questions" and not limit himself to the questions the interviewee wants to be asked. 

 

I'm not saying that Poyer has a responsibility to answer - he doesn't - just speaking to the point that a reporter traditionally would not consider himself "bound" to respect the interviewee's requests in an open interview format (if it's a 1:1 interview by special arrangement where certain topics have been agreed out of bounds, sure).

 

Wawrow has serious journalist chops and (for example) was the guy chosen to interview Terry Pegula after the Whaley "Privy to" debacle presser /Rex firing, because his reputation as a fair, even-handed report gave him trust with them.

That makes sense. In this case, I don't see it as asking a "tough question."

 

He fumbled over wording it because he was really trying to get at the vaccines topic. If his intent was genuinely about training camp, then all he needed to ask was "do you think it's more beneficial to have training camp at OBD or SJC?" Then he can integrate that with context into his article under the overarching topic of vaccines, if that's what he's writing about.

 

It shouldn't be that hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

We'll just have to disagree here.  I don't think Wawrow's behavior was disrespectful at all.  He had an angle that he didn't think fell into the exact category Poyer said he wouldn't talk about, he gave it a try, Poyer said essentially "nope, falls into the category of stuff I'm not going to talk about", the interview moved on.

 

It seems to me that various reporters have asked, not the specific $$, but "would you be open to taking a team friendly contract?" type question, and Allen has appropriately refused to get into it.  But I don't hear people claiming those questions "arent football related" or aren't appropriate, because they are.

 

 

Yeah, I agree.   Wawrow can ask, although this is the second time he's tread there, and he should realize that people within the organization see him doing it.  

 

As to the contract issue, you've just agreed with me.   Yes, the vaccine has some football connection.  So does the contract issue.  They both have a connection.   My point was that no reporter persists in asking the contract question after the Bills have said we aren't talking about it.  Somehow, Wawrow thinks it's okay to keeping asking this other question.   That will have only one effect - to reduce the kind of access Wawrow gets.  As Sullivan's situation proved, the old adage - don't argue with someone who buys ink in 55-gallon drums - doesn't always apply.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...