Jerry Sullivan article

[lawnboy1977]

There's a lot of times I'm not sure I know where I stand with Sullivan, he says somethings that dont make much sense once once in a while, but he does speak his mind thats for sure give him credit for that.

 

This article on the defense is interesting because he makes a point about the Bills not playing any high quality opponents at least offensively inferior opponents. The thing is though if you look around the league and teams that we played last year and teams that we will play this year who is high quality that we'll play?

 

He mentions that the Bills shouldn't have to apologize for their schedule, that's true, but seriously what team does have tough competition all round? yes we play NE and NYJ twice each year. But the rest of the schedule, AFC south? Miami? Houston, Cincy, Denver? None of those teams have hugh number producing QBs or offenses all roung really, with the exeption of maybe ATL and possibly New Orleans.

 

Look, New England has the same schedule as us for the most part cept for 2 games, and the fact they don't have to play themselves.

 

I think the schedules in the NFl today are designed to constantly rotating and as even as possible so nobody can be faulted for that.

 

Any thoughts? I'm just rambling.

[Buftex]

There's a lot of times I'm not sure I know where I stand with Sullivan, he says somethings that dont make much sense once once in a while, but he does speak his mind thats for sure give him credit for that.

 

This article on the defense is interesting because he makes a point about the Bills not playing any high quality opponents at least offensively inferior opponents.  The thing is though if you look around the league and teams that we played last year and teams that we will play this year who is high quality that we'll play? 

 

He mentions that the Bills shouldn't have to apologize for their schedule, that's true, but seriously what team does have tough competition all round?  yes we play NE and NYJ twice each year.  But the rest of the schedule, AFC south?  Miami?  Houston, Cincy, Denver?  None of those teams have hugh number producing QBs or offenses all roung really, with the exeption of maybe ATL and possibly New Orleans.

 

Look, New England has the same schedule as us for the most part cept for 2 games, and the fact they don't have to play themselves. 

 

I think the schedules in the NFl today are designed to constantly rotating and as even as possible so nobody can be faulted for that. 

 

Any thoughts?  I'm just rambling.

414712[/snapback]

 

I am hardly a Jerry Sullivan fan, but I will give him his due. My experience in reading him over the years is that he generally sees the glass "half empty" when it comes to the Bills. We all hate him for it, and B word about what an a**hole he is, but then, months later, many of his most vocal critics are saying the same things that he said. In actuallity, he often turns out to be more right than wrong. For instance, I think he is dead on about Nate Clements (not worth resigning for Champ Bailey like money),even though Nate is likely my favorite player on the team. I hate reading it, hate hearing it, hate thinking about him being an "ex-Bill", but bigger picture, he may not be worth that kindof money, if it means throwing our salary cap out of whack again.

 

Lets just say, Sullivan is the "I told you so" guy...

[Lori]

All you have to know about Sullivan is this quote from last season:

"Tom Donahoe gets paid to run the Bills. I get paid to be his biggest critic."

 

Sometimes he agrees with a decision Donahoe made (as with dumping Bledsoe for Losman); more often he disagrees. Either way, he's doing what he was hired to do - tell you what he thinks.

 

And let's be honest - by the time you pick up the Monday morning paper after a game (or click on the newspaper's website, in this day and age), you've probably already watched the game, caught the highlights on ESPN or the 11 o'clock news, and maybe even spent some time here on the Wall. You've already got the facts... so if you open up the paper to the sports section, you're most likely LOOKING for an opinion you can agree or disagree with. "Yeah, that's exactly how I saw it," or maybe, "WHAT?!? What game was HE watching?"

 

And if his column elicits a reaction from you - which it has, since you posted about it on a fan message board - then Sullivan has earned his paycheck.

 

To today's column:

Many of the points he made have also been made here in the past. Some are more valid than others. And in regards to his list of mediocre QBs the Bills faced last year? I made one of those, too, and for the same reasons he did.

Congrats, Mr. Sullivan, looks like you earned your paycheck today.

[Dawgg]

Completely agree. I think Sullivan brings a dimension that none of the other writers bring. If you're looking for a glass half full view of the Bills, go ahead and read Allen Wilson or Mark Gaughan -- both excellent jounalists who choose to focus on the negatives. Sullivan's articles, though often exaggerated, provide an alternative viewpoint, which I am always willing to read.

 

It's amazing how so many posters react as if he is insulting thier mother when in fact he is merely criticizing a football team.

 

 

All you have to know about Sullivan is this quote from last season:

"Tom Donahoe gets paid to run the Bills. I get paid to be his biggest critic."

 

Sometimes he agrees with a decision Donahoe made (as with dumping Bledsoe for Losman); more often he disagrees. Either way, he's doing what he was hired to do - tell you what he thinks.

 

And let's be honest - by the time you pick up the Monday morning paper after a game (or click on the newspaper's website, in this day and age), you've probably already watched the game, caught the highlights on ESPN or the 11 o'clock news, and maybe even spent some time here on the Wall. You've already got the facts... so if you open up the paper to the sports section, you're most likely LOOKING for an opinion you can agree or disagree with. "Yeah, that's exactly how I saw it," or maybe, "WHAT?!? What game was HE watching?"

 

And if his column elicits a reaction from you - which it has, since you posted about it on a fan message board - then Sullivan has earned his paycheck.

 

To today's column:

Many of the points he made have also been made here in the past. Some are more valid than others. And in regards to his list of mediocre QBs the Bills faced last year? I made one of those, too, and for the same reasons he did.

Congrats, Mr. Sullivan, looks like you earned your paycheck today.

414738[/snapback]

[MDH]

All you have to know about Sullivan is this quote from last season:

"Tom Donahoe gets paid to run the Bills. I get paid to be his biggest critic."

 

Sometimes he agrees with a decision Donahoe made (as with dumping Bledsoe for Losman); more often he disagrees. Either way, he's doing what he was hired to do - tell you what he thinks.

 

And let's be honest - by the time you pick up the Monday morning paper after a game (or click on the newspaper's website, in this day and age), you've probably already watched the game, caught the highlights on ESPN or the 11 o'clock news, and maybe even spent some time here on the Wall. You've already got the facts... so if you open up the paper to the sports section, you're most likely LOOKING for an opinion you can agree or disagree with. "Yeah, that's exactly how I saw it," or maybe, "WHAT?!? What game was HE watching?"

 

And if his column elicits a reaction from you - which it has, since you posted about it on a fan message board - then Sullivan has earned his paycheck.

 

To today's column:

Many of the points he made have also been made here in the past. Some are more valid than others. And in regards to his list of mediocre QBs the Bills faced last year? I made one of those, too, and for the same reasons he did.

Congrats, Mr. Sullivan, looks like you earned your paycheck today.

414738[/snapback]

 

I have to disagree; he only partly earned his paycheck. Its easy to look at the Bills schedule and say "hey, who did they play", but unless you're going to actually compare it to the other top flight D's in the league, you've done a half-assed job. I'd also disagree with you about "if he elicits a reaction from you...then Sullivan has earned his paycheck." Any idiot with a strong opinion can elicit a reaction from the general public, its not tough to do. The trick is to actually make the public think and, perhaps, question their own opinions. Sullivan rarely does that because his arguments aren't generally that well thought out.

[Dawgg]

His job is to write an article, not a PhD dissertation.

 

If he wanted to compare the quality of competition faced by Buffalo versus the top flight defenses, he easily could -- but he was just using that as one of his many points in proving that the defense has a lot to prove this year. I think he laid out his argument fairly well.

 

1. The defense is very good

2. Tends to overpursue (See Pittsburgh game)

3. Faced subpar competition last year

 

Therefore, the defense has a lot to prove this year. Seems fairly well thought out to me.

 

 

 

I have to disagree; he only partly earned his paycheck.  Its easy to look at the Bills schedule and say "hey, who did they play", but unless you're going to actually compare it to the other top flight D's in the league, you've done a half-assed job.  I'd also disagree with you about "if he elicits a reaction from you...then Sullivan has earned his paycheck."  Any idiot with a strong opinion can elicit a reaction from the general public, its not tough to do.  The trick is to actually make the public think and, perhaps, question their own opinions.  Sullivan rarely does that because his arguments aren't generally that well thought out.

414745[/snapback]

[MDH]

His job is to write an article, not a PhD dissertation.

 

 

 

I guess your standards for "quality" journalism are lower than mine if you think doing a bit of research for a comparison equates to a "PhD dissertation" and isn't needed for a simple article in a newspaper.

 

To each his own.

[Lori]

I have to disagree; he only partly earned his paycheck.  Its easy to look at the Bills schedule and say "hey, who did they play", but unless you're going to actually compare it to the other top flight D's in the league, you've done a half-assed job.  I'd also disagree with you about "if he elicits a reaction from you...then Sullivan has earned his paycheck."  Any idiot with a strong opinion can elicit a reaction from the general public, its not tough to do.  The trick is to actually make the public think and, perhaps, question their own opinions.  Sullivan rarely does that because his arguments aren't generally that well thought out.

414745[/snapback]

What kind of schedule the other top flight defenses in the league played has nothing to do with whether or not the Buffalo D can stop the other team when it counts. And in quite a few games last season, they couldn't.

 

We had quite the argument about this last October, or thereabouts. (Just before the winning streak started, IIRC.) Petrino skewered the offense for wasting an all-time-great effort by the D; I think it was CentralVA who listed the breakdowns at the end of the Jax game... and the end of the first Jets game... and Brady beating the blitz whenever he damn well pleased...

(And, of course, the Pittsburgh debacle was yet to come.)

 

Here's Sully's 'hook', the core of his argument:

" They're a very good unit. But if the Bills want to be considered great, they have to do it against the better offenses - ultimately, in a playoff game. Until that happens, I'll have my reservations."

Think of a few truly great defenses. 2000 Ravens? Won the Super Bowl, dragging a mediocre offense along for the ride. 1985 Bears? One game from a perfect season, and a Super Bowl beatdown of the Pats. "Doomsday"? Super Bowl 12. "Steel Curtain"? Four rings in six years. So if Sullivan isn't ready to consider the current Bills defense "great" - not just "very good", but "great" - until they prove it against playoff-caliber competition, I can buy that. No need for me to question my own opinion in this case, because I already agree with him.

 

I've taken my share of potshots at Sully over the years; heck, I think I'm the one who originally dubbed him "Mr. Negativity" here. But once I stopped judging the quality of his work solely by whether or not I agreed with the point he was trying to make, I started to gain a measure of respect for his writing.

I don't think Rick Reilly's in any danger of having to ship that 'Sportswriter of the Year' trophy to Buffalo any time soon... but there are much, MUCH worse columnists than Sullivan out there.

[Dawgg]

But he did do his research. He pointed out that the offenses the Bills faced were among the worst in the league. He went game by game to point that out. While this could be a topic in and of itself, it was only one of a few points he made. Delving deeply into this point IMO would necessitate an article by itself.

 

Given the context in which he was presenting the information, I think the supporting facts he provided were adequate. As you said, to each his own.

 

I guess your standards for "quality" journalism are lower than mine if you think doing a bit of research for a comparison equates to a "PhD dissertation" and isn't needed for a simple article in a newspaper.

 

To each his own.

414757[/snapback]