RayFinkle Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Minnesota, Jets, Browns, Cowboys, Texans. I think we could work a deal. Maybe he could go to Houston and pay child on the bye week with Eric Moulds. Minnesota has Chester Taylor. Dallas has Julius Jones and Marion Barber. Browns is a big maybe... Texans and Jets maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Nice of jerry to pass judgement and make the claim that people who have kids out of wedlock are low-lifes. One time = a foolish mistake Two times = a pattern Three times = a lowlife I got no problem with that comment. No problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Its my understanding that the lawsuit that brought all of this to our attention did involve child support. Could be wrong, but I'm kind of old fashioned about raising kids...support is money and commitment to raising the little rug rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Its my understanding that the lawsuit that brought all of this to our attention did involve child support. Could be wrong, but I'm kind of old fashioned about raising kids...support is money and commitment to raising the little rug rats. Its a paternity suit to determine if he really is the father of the kid. Willis has had no problem paying for his other 2 kids, no reason not to think he wont pay for the third (if it is his). And as i stated above, *I* dont agree with willis not being there at home to raise his kids. But he IS doing exactly what the court requires him to do. Paying money to support his children. That cant be argued. But then again, given his apparent intellect, how is willis not being at home a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I typicvally dont buy into the "hes not one of 'us'" Stuff. When coaches or players get slammed for being a "california guy" or "not blue collar" or for not having a permanent residence in WNY, I think its BS and has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. A ton of baseball and hockey players arent even from the COUNTRY anymore, so its downright silly for the notion that a "true Bill" has to have grown up in Kenmore to be welcomed to the Bills Community. NOW....with that said, McGahee's comments clearly have other motives. And Sullivan is dead on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I consider a dad who isn't there a low life. There are lots of fathers out there who put in their time raising kids who aren't very bright (like Willis), but being there is part of the game. Fathering kids and not being there is domething that money (assuming there is "no problem" with Willis paying for the sake of argument) does not fix or excuse the failure to raise a child. Fathering the brood and not raising the brood qualifies for low life status in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I consider a dad who isn't there a low life. There are lots of fathers out there who put in their time raising kids who aren't very bright (like Willis), but being there is part of the game. Fathering kids and not being there is domething that money (assuming there is "no problem" with Willis paying for the sake of argument) does not fix or excuse the failure to raise a child. Fathering the brood and not raising the brood qualifies for low life status in my book. fair enough. as i said, i agree with your stance on the father being there. I dont think its a sports writers place, however, to call someone a low-life because they see things differently, or have a different opinion. My arguement was more on sully idiotically passing judgement than it was about willis himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 One thing that Sullivan is 100% correct on is his recent request for a contract extension is a thinly veiled attempt to poison the waters with management and force a trade out of Buffalo. This (the penthouse article) is round two of the Drew Rosenhous strategy. It will continue, and unlike Sullivan, I hope Marv ignores every bit of blather that he spouts. He played average to above average. I don't see that changing, but maybe playing for a contract will excite Willis as much as facing Vilma does. Let him play out next year and then move along. There is no position in football that is easier to replace via FA or the draft than RB. Turn a deaf ear to Drew and Willis. If he wants a trade don't lift the phone to make any calls. Let baby daddy do the legwork. If someone comes to you offering a #2...take it. One more thing...the banner must be changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 One time = a foolish mistakeTwo times = a pattern Three times = a lowlife I got no problem with that comment. No problem at all. Could not have said it better myself!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 i think willis is a poor decision maker and too carefree with impregnating these women, but i blame them more than him. these women chose to have sex with willis, chose not to use protection, and then chose to have the child. it is their choice, not willis' to have these kids and IMO they are prolly doing it to get a paycheck from a sports star. far from a lowlife, he just has sex with the wrong girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Jerry Sullivan, just like many on this board, did not bother to mention the following: "I got a lotta love for Buffalo," he said. "I thank God for the whole situation. I'm trying to make them proud. I'm trying to do some things here." That omission tells you all you need to know about Sullivan. I also am convinced that Sullivan posts on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 i think willis is a poor decision maker and too carefree with impregnating these women, but i blame them more than him. these women chose to have sex with willis, chose not to use protection, and then chose to have the child. it is their choice, not willis' to have these kids and IMO they are prolly doing it to get a paycheck from a sports star. far from a lowlife, he just has sex with the wrong girls. that is the stupidest thing i have read in quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rastabillz Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I consider a dad who isn't there a low life. There are lots of fathers out there who put in their time raising kids who aren't very bright (like Willis), but being there is part of the game. Fathering kids and not being there is domething that money (assuming there is "no problem" with Willis paying for the sake of argument) does not fix or excuse the failure to raise a child. Fathering the brood and not raising the brood qualifies for low life status in my book. Not too long ago I caught the tail end of a FOX Sports special on Ray Lewis. He was talking about not having his father in his life and how much that had hurt. He was sobbing and very angry at the same time. Sure the child support payments help, but not being there for those kids will leave a huge void in their life. It was very moving seeing a huge athelete like Ray Lewis reduced to tears when talking about his father. 3 children with 3 different women is a disaster for those kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 If Lynch or Peterson are there at the 12th pick, Marv has got a pretty major decision to make. Pretty tough on passing on either one of these 2 guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 i think willis is a poor decision maker and too carefree with impregnating these women, but i blame them more than him. these women chose to have sex with willis, chose not to use protection, and then chose to have the child. it is their choice, not willis' to have these kids and IMO they are prolly doing it to get a paycheck from a sports star. far from a lowlife, he just has sex with the wrong girls. OMG...are you from this century?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 If Lynch or Peterson are there at the 12th pick, Marv has got a pretty major decision to make. Pretty tough on passing on either one of these 2 guys. Antonio Pittman from Ohio State has a 5-month old daughter. Maybe we should draft him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 OMG...are you from this century?!? I am tempted to make a guess or two about his (colin's) upbringing, but since I'm not trained in that field I shall pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Define "support". Sure, willis isnt there at home taking care of the kids, and *I* personally dont agree with that stance. But according to everything else, he's had no problem paying his child support. He may not be the greatest father, but he's doing exactly what the court told him to. Hes paying them money to support to his kids. If he was dodging payments, then call him a low-life. What about the irresponsibility of fathering children who will never lead "normal" lives with a mother and father simply because Willis didn't want to wear a raincoat? And if he uses the excuse "she told me she was on the pill" then he's even more of an idiot than currently reflected. There are a lot of worthy causes to defend; a pro athlete's sperm donation throughout society isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 What about the irresponsibility of fathering children who will never lead "normal" lives with a mother and father simply because Willis didn't want to wear a raincoat? And if he uses the excuse "she told me she was on the pill" then he's even more of an idiot than currently reflected. There are a lot of worthy causes to defend; a pro athlete's sperm donation throughout society isn't one of them. try taking some more classes in reading comprehension. its apparently not your strong suit. I wasnt defending willis's actions, as i stated roughly 3 times. I dont agree with him. I stated that 3 times too. My point was, who the hell is jerry sullivan to determine that willis is a low life because he's had kids out of wedlock? I'll be sure to inform my friends that are single parents that they are low-lifes, because they had kids out of wedlock. Gotta love the TBD morality police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Antonio Pittman from Ohio State has a 5-month old daughter. Maybe we should draft him. That is not a bad idea. The bills could then start a daycare for their illigitimate bastard childs that they conceive to generate more revenue. You just might of saved the bills in buffalo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts