Uh Oh! Dead [Media] Man Walking!

[krazykat]

Di Cesare is right.

Of course he is. The Bills are also wrong or at least equaly at fault in not getting negotiations going. I don't know why there isn't more heat on the novice Russ Brandon for this mess. If this were Donahoe, the seasoned expert GM that everyone handed the keys to the kingdom to, he'd have been run out of town by now.

 

Instead, the signings of far lesser players to money they haven't even remotely showed that they'll earn are regarded as good contracts for the team because they're young as if Peters is 33.

 

All I know is that if I'm Jauron, Schonert, or even Brandon I'm shi!!ing my pants over this, because if Peters isn't in camp, I have no idea why anyone thinks that an offense that was one of the few worst in Bills team history will improve by much this year without their best lineman that's worth two of any other.

 

And this team's big splash of a draftee, James Hardy, does not appear to be setting things on fire to the extent that he's going to revolutionize the team as many here seemed to have hoped. Other than him hardly anything has changed. Same OL, same WR's otherwise, same TE's for the most part, same QB, same RB. Yeah, different OC who has never held the position and sits under an extremely defensive minded coach getting little mentoring there.

 

I don't understand why anyone thinks this is good management on this team. Piss off your best players before they leave, sign your expendable players to contracts bigger than they should get because they're young, and rely on rookies to propel your team to the playoffs. Sure. Whatever works as they say. But this won't work.

[dave mcbride]

Fine then, Dr. Z is another Dead "Media" Man Walking then too. And I actually appreciate that insight because I give him no credit. The man's usually an utter buffoon with what he writes. I was wondering how he came up with this.

 

I will say that it's interesting reading the responses here. Seems as if the more cogent and tempered ones are on Peters' side. The others appear to be most little tantrums. What I don't understand is how quickly the posters that offer the least substance band together to determine what the group/gang/mob opinion is. What gets me is that it rarely falls on the side of the better players. Those players all need to tuck their tails and suck it up for the team, while others that are overpaid as backups, role players, and extremely marginal starters and that get paid barely below what the really good players get on a year to year basis after their contracts are evaluated, are championed as great signings all built around "their youth" or something else that has no direct value in and of itself.

 

Message board dynamics are definitely interesting if nothing else.

Hmm. I'd say Dr. Z is the best football writer in history because he a) knows how to write, b) is educated about things beyond football and weaves that stuff into his columns pretty well, and c) has a sense of levity about the game since he's been covering it for so long (i.e., he doesn't foam at the mouth each season like bad writers bent on proving they're right about inconsequential stuff -- Prisco, Silver). Of course, I have no problem if you disagree. Re your point about others, I suggest you worry less in public about what other people think of your opinions. Just say 'em once or twice and live with 'em. People get the point.

[krazykat]

Hmm. I'd say Dr. Z is the best football writer in history because he a) knows how to write, b) is educated about things beyond football and weaves that stuff into his columns pretty well, and c) has a sense of levity about the game since he's been covering it for so long (i.e., he doesn't foam at the mouth each season like bad writers bent on proving they're right about inconsequential stuff -- Prisco, Silver). Of course, I have no problem if you disagree. Re your point about others, I suggest you worry less in public about what other people think of your opinions. Just say 'em once or twice and live with 'em. People get the point.

Do they get the point? Then why am I asked the same questions and challenged in the same way over and over again by numerous people when they've already been answered and when those points are already laid out?

 

As to Dr. Z, I respect him. As to whether he's the best football writer in history can no doubt be argued. I'm sure he's not 100% correct all the time either just like every writer. When I say dead media man walking, I mean here since he, with the credentials as you suggest, is in disagreement with the majority of this forum. See, there's little tolerance for the non-popular/non-majority view here no matter how much you'd like to argue that point.

 

As to "worrying in public what other people think of my opinion," who says I do? Surely not I. I couldn't care less. I do enjoy good argumentation however, but when someone constantly takes the side of an organization clearly with an undeniable agenda, just like every other team, and when arguments break down into the presenting of data and facts on one side and insults and expressions of dislike for a poster and completely apart from the issues and data/facts on the other, then there isn't much of a credible discussion and argument now, is there? And can't people that disagree simply avoid a thread? Apparently not which to me suggest psychopathic issues in a number of posters altogether.

 

Either way, on this issue Dr. Z would apparently agree with me if what you say is true, and I'm who you or at least many are attempting to discredit just as everyone here has since I in a massive minority manner began to take the same argument as Dr. Z.

 

So, forgetting whether or not I'm right or wrong, which is immaterial, are you suggesting now that the best football writer in history that a) knows how to write, b) is educated about things beyond football and weaves that stuff into his columns pretty well, and c) has a sense of levity about the game since he's been covering it for so long, is correct about his views on the Peters situation which you suggest that DiCesare plagerized from him?

 

If so, then why in developing the same argument up front, and merely at the onset without many posts, was I slammed by the vast majority here both argumentatively as well as personally with all kinds of name calling?

 

Are you now saying that Dr. Z is correct and that therefore I am correct? Again, apart from whether I'm "right or wrong" having anything to do with it.

 

If so, then how do you explain the onslaught that I received if you go back and look at my initial posts? Were those responses a) reasonable by the people that made them, and b) in light of Z's view being the correct one per your seeming endorsement, and regardless, with my simple viewpoint aligning with his otherwise, correct also? If so, why the rash?

 

What, I say it and get slammed. Dr. Z says it and all of a sudden it makes sense?

 

If you ask me this is a perfect example of the anti-social "mob rule" environment that exists in online forum environments.

[krazykat]

Hmm. I'd say Dr. Z is the best football writer in history because he a) knows how to write, b) is educated about things beyond football and weaves that stuff into his columns pretty well, and c) has a sense of levity about the game since he's been covering it for so long (i.e., he doesn't foam at the mouth each season like bad writers bent on proving they're right about inconsequential stuff -- Prisco, Silver). Of course, I have no problem if you disagree. Re your point about others, I suggest you worry less in public about what other people think of your opinions. Just say 'em once or twice and live with 'em. People get the point.

Can I also ask, do you really believe that most people here don't make the same trivial opinions of theirs over and over again.

 

Yeah right.

[dave mcbride]

Do they get the point? Then why am I asked the same questions and challenged in the same way over and over again by numerous people when they've already been answered and when those points are already laid out?

 

As to Dr. Z, I respect him. As to whether he's the best football writer in history can no doubt be argued. I'm sure he's not 100% correct all the time either just like every writer. When I say dead media man walking, I mean here since he, with the credentials as you suggest, is in disagreement with the majority of this forum. See, there's little tolerance for the non-popular/non-majority view here no matter how much you'd like to argue that point.

 

As to "worrying in public what other people think of my opinion," who says I do? Surely not I. I couldn't care less. I do enjoy good argumentation however, but when someone constantly takes the side of an organization clearly with an undeniable agenda, just like every other team, and when arguments break down into the presenting of data and facts on one side and insults and expressions of dislike for a poster and completely apart from the issues and data/facts on the other, then there isn't much of a credible discussion and argument now, is there? And can't people that disagree simply avoid a thread? Apparently not which to me suggest psychopathic issues in a number of posters altogether.

 

Either way, on this issue Dr. Z would apparently agree with me if what you say is true, and I'm who you or at least many are attempting to discredit just as everyone here has since I in a massive minority manner began to take the same argument as Dr. Z.

 

So, forgetting whether or not I'm right or wrong, which is immaterial, are you suggesting now that the best football writer in history that a) knows how to write, b) is educated about things beyond football and weaves that stuff into his columns pretty well, and c) has a sense of levity about the game since he's been covering it for so long, is correct about his views on the Peters situation which you suggest that DiCesare plagerized from him?

 

If so, then why in developing the same argument up front, and merely at the onset without many posts, was I slammed by the vast majority here both argumentatively as well as personally with all kinds of name calling?

 

Are you now saying that Dr. Z is correct and that therefore I am correct? Again, apart from whether I'm "right or wrong" having anything to do with it.

 

If so, then how do you explain the onslaught that I received if you go back and look at my initial posts? Were those responses a) reasonable by the people that made them, and b) in light of Z's view being the correct one per your seeming endorsement, and regardless, with my simple viewpoint aligning with his otherwise, correct also? If so, why the rash?

 

What, I say it and get slammed. Dr. Z says it and all of a sudden it makes sense?

 

If you ask me this is a perfect example of the anti-social "mob rule" environment that exists in online forum environments.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. By my very rough estimation, most - but not all - people here think Peters deserves a raise, and I expect (hope?) that he'll get one before too long. I've always felt that he's had the upper hand in all of this because he's so much better than the alternative. I could be wrong, however. We'll find out soon enough.

 

Again, though, I suggest that you try to not make your posts revolve around perceived slights. It detracts from the substantive discussion. Personally, I don't treat criticism from others as personal attacks on me. It's not worth my time in any case.

 

Re DiCesare, I think that a lot of the News reporters are lazy, and isn't it a bit odd that they hadn't published a decent piece on the subject, which everyone here knows is the biggest one this camp, until a national reporter with far better credentials and contacts did it? It certainly doesn't qualify as plagiarism, however -- it's hardly verbatim. It's just not original.

[MarkAF43]

Can I also ask, do you really believe that most people here don't make the same trivial opinions of theirs over and over again.

 

Yeah right.

 

 

why are you so negative? and don't say you are being objective because you have done nothing but take shots at every aspect of this orginization, if you are this dissatisfied by the way things are run here, go be a pats* fan

[krazykat]

why are you so negative? and don't say you are being objective because you have done nothing but take shots at every aspect of this orginization, if you are this dissatisfied by the way things are run here, go be a pats* fan

Couldn't I ask you the exact same thing based on your post? You and others accuse me of things that take place routinely and daily here.

 

And you're joking, right? Perhaps we should take a look at the forums last year around late December and see how "unnegative" everyone was or how noncritical of the organization you and they were.

 

Yes, I take shots at this organization, do you have a problem with that?

 

In your mind are they beyond reproach? Perfect?

 

So essentially you're lecturing me on what I'm allowed to complain about. Here's an idea, don't read it. And talk about negativity, you don't even discuss the topic here, you just complain about me personally. That isn't being negative? At least I criticize the team not you personally. Any criticisms that I make about anything here is very general, rarely directed at anyone personally, and when it is it is usually because that's the path that that poster has chosen to go down with me.

 

So allow me to sum up for you, you don't want me here because my viewpoints don't line up with yours. Sorry, TFB. I don't say the same about you, I challenge your thoughts like I'm doing here. Got a problem with it, then don't lock horns with me. Want to discuss good football without your personal views interrupting the discussion, feel free. I'm not seeing that in 90% of the posts responding to me. Instead I see little personal attacks, like yours, having absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, adding nothing, and if they're not negative, well, then are they positive? I don't think so.

 

I'm a Bills fan and unhappy about losing and our status as 12-year no playoff win team and a team that's missed the playoffs for eight straight years now. Apparently you're fine with that and see little room for criticism. If I tell you what I think and at the end of the season I'm wrong, how about then taking me on and seeing what I say about that instead of telling me now as if you know because the team told you so online.

 

Now, in the tone of your tremendously positive post, have you got anything football related that you'd like to discuss? Or do you just want to continue to rant on about me? I fail to see why that's of interest to anyone, yet it is.

[krazykat]

I have no idea what you're talking about. By my very rough estimation, most - but not all - people here think Peters deserves a raise, and I expect (hope?) that he'll get one before too long. I've always felt that he's had the upper hand in all of this because he's so much better than the alternative. I could be wrong, however. We'll find out soon enough.

 

Again, though, I suggest that you try to not make your posts revolve around perceived slights. It detracts from the substantive discussion. Personally, I don't treat criticism from others as personal attacks on me. It's not worth my time in any case.

 

Re DiCesare, I think that a lot of the News reporters are lazy, and isn't it a bit odd that they hadn't published a decent piece on the subject, which everyone here knows is the biggest one this camp, until a national reporter with far better credentials and contacts did it? It certainly doesn't qualify as plagiarism, however -- it's hardly verbatim. It's just not original.

You could be right about everyone here in your very rough estimation thinking that Peters deserves a raise, but I don't think I've really touched on that if you've read my stuff. It's most about the approaches here used by both. And I've stated my positions. I've statrted topics/threads as to whose position, Peters or the team, has more risk associated with it, a poll, and one other thing all with different nuances. But people here see "Peters" and just like everything else, it can only have one angle to it, right?

 

Your last comment was denigrating me as to how much Dr. Z knows in contrast (implied) to what I do. Then you ran on about me foaming at the mouth, again, implied, and talked about how I care so much about what others think and whether or not I'm right or wrong.

 

I then explained to you why that's not true, and I'll even ask for examples which you won't provide, but more importantly that Dr. Z's view was much more well received than mine and I had barely posted anything on the topic to go "foaming at the mouth" as you suggested, but his was much more well received. Fine, no problem, but it's all personal, little objective.

 

I'm sorry you failed to understand my post, but how about some football discussion instead of more happy non-negative posting about me simply because you have a case of the ass at me for whatever your reasons are?

 

In the meantime, enlighten me to whay Dr. Z's opinion is any different than mine in this?

 

Otherwise, you say what you said and then come off as holier than thou while doing nothing but insulting me. Your choice, but again, I fail to see how I'm the one being negative here. And for once I tried to sincerely engage you and got this.

 

Then MarkAF43 adds nothing relevant to the topic and digs at me further. And you guys accuse me of negativity. Well, it is amusement in itself. You guys take this team a little bit too seriously if you can't stop from posting that type of stuff. All I'm doing is criticizing an organization. The response by most here is to slam me personally.

 

And I might not disagree with you on most people wanting Peters to get more. But that hasn't been my position so simply. It has everything to do with the methods being employed and the inconsistencies within the organization. But hey, who's reading before they pile on anyway.

[MarkAF43]

you do realize it is one thing to criticize, but you take this whole thing as some kind of challenge. No one is saying we need to "lock horns with you" as you stated. The problem is that you have taken the things you post about to a crusade level. People here have made it clear their stance on the Peters situation. I have said in the past if he would get himself to camp odds are he would get what he wants by being a team player and honoring the current contract he has. You and I disagree on it, that's fine. You mention us overpaying for rotational and backup players, I don't see us overpaying but I also don't see the problem with signing the players you have before they hit the open market. Plus doing those contracts is probably a lot easier because they are not top tier players. And also, I am not naive enough to think there have been no communications between the Bills and Peters, however the ultimate issue comes down to, who is being hurt more by Peters not being there? The Bills? not as much as what Peters is losing in salary and lost wages, and right now his status as a team player is dropping as well. The hard stance is fine, but as it has been mentioned in the past, the players the Bills have signed to keep them with the team for the most part have shown up to camp and OTA's and worked to get new deals. These statements are nothing new and people have been posting them since this started, however I also understand the points that Peters runs the risk of injury and it's not guaranteed, etc etc.... The problem is that this is the NFL and these players know that any play could be the last one they play and they want to be paid for it. That's fine too. People should at least be able to understand both sides of the argument. And personally i think people have "attacked" you because you keep saying the same thing and it doesn't appear you want to take the view of the other side, try and throw something positive out there sometime and people might back off

[krazykat]

you do realize it is one thing to criticize, but you take this whole thing as some kind of challenge. No one is saying we need to "lock horns with you" as you stated. The problem is that you have taken the things you post about to a crusade level. People here have made it clear their stance on the Peters situation. I have said in the past if he would get himself to camp odds are he would get what he wants by being a team player and honoring the current contract he has. You and I disagree on it, that's fine. You mention us overpaying for rotational and backup players, I don't see us overpaying but I also don't see the problem with signing the players you have before they hit the open market. Plus doing those contracts is probably a lot easier because they are not top tier players. And also, I am not naive enough to think there have been no communications between the Bills and Peters, however the ultimate issue comes down to, who is being hurt more by Peters not being there? The Bills? not as much as what Peters is losing in salary and lost wages, and right now his status as a team player is dropping as well. The hard stance is fine, but as it has been mentioned in the past, the players the Bills have signed to keep them with the team for the most part have shown up to camp and OTA's and worked to get new deals. These statements are nothing new and people have been posting them since this started, however I also understand the points that Peters runs the risk of injury and it's not guaranteed, etc etc.... The problem is that this is the NFL and these players know that any play could be the last one they play and they want to be paid for it. That's fine too. People should at least be able to understand both sides of the argument. And personally i think people have "attacked" you because you keep saying the same thing and it doesn't appear you want to take the view of the other side, try and throw something positive out there sometime and people might back off

What takes it to a crusade level is all of the slamming of each other. I posted one thing, one, and everyone went bananas.

 

Otherwise let's move on to football since you actually made some comments there.

 

You mention us overpaying for rotational and backup players, I don't see us overpaying but I also don't see the problem with signing the players you have before they hit the open market.

 

Well, OK, but many people thought we overpaid for Kelsay, then Schobel, and Schobel had four years or something before he hit the market. Just about everyone around the league thought we overpaid for Williams, Dockery, and even Walker. You don't think we overpaid for Tripplett who was a backup before he got here? How about Royal, the most expensive TE in Bills history to date. Butler had two seasons left. So why the hurry to "lock him up?" Evans is gone after this year and I see no hurry there either. Williams would have been and RFA after this year and they jumped to lock him up. So your statement makes no sense unless you think that none of those players was overpaid or needed to be locked up when Evans hasn't been.

 

I guess we'll have to disagree on that too. I just don't think you'll find much support for your notions there.

 

And also, I am not naive enough to think there have been no communications between the Bills and Peters, however the ultimate issue comes down to, who is being hurt more by Peters not being there? The Bills?

 

That's purely opinion. Our offense sucked last year. So we can figure out why and discuss it, or simply ignore everything and say what makes us all individually happy. I just can't see that without our best lineman, or who is our best now, Butler, Dockery, that we will do any better. And if we don't do any better, can you possibly see any major changes within this organization that will set us back? I have no idea how you can't. Some of the biggest stink if we don't post a winning season will emanate from right here.

 

I mean if you mean in monetary terms, fine. But who cares. Do you care whether the team or Peters has more money? It's all obscene anyway and if that were the issue we'd all be totally disgusted with all of them. The question is what will be the status of the team without Peters. Peters is going to get his one way or another. We're not going to carry him on the roster for three more years "just to show him." If he holds out the entire year we'll trade him. But if that happens, we will probably suck again on offense and Brandon may never see season two, Jauron should be fired along with the most of the rest of his staff except for April. And if that happens then do you think that's a good thing?

 

And personally i think people have "attacked" you because you keep saying the same thing and it doesn't appear you want to take the view of the other side, try and throw something positive out there sometime and people might back off

 

I have said many things positive and it's made absolutely no difference and it's ignored. Most of the time I'm just trying to discuss football. And I've addressed some of the repetitiveness but I've also answered these charges numerous times, so how can you honestly and in good faith say this and if I post the answer again someone else will talk about how repetitive I am. What I don't understand is why so many people here are drawn to and read posts that they say they hate? They're clearly marked. Dont' like the topic, don't go in. Is that complicated? But going in to B word and then accuse others of being negative and of repetitiveness is insane.

 

Also, what's more positive, saying that Peters is a great player and the team needs him more than he needs them, or saying that we can do without him? Isn't that a little subjective? It sure is. And that's my point, the mob determines what the positive things are. That's why everyone here is real supportive now but if we happen to be 4-10 with two weeks to go and Edwards stinks the joint up all of a sudden a lot of sentiments simply in attempts at discussion that were not allowed here now will be the popular view while anyone suggesting that the team has some bright spots will be called names. Happens every year.

 

You think that Peters has more to lose, I think that the team has infinitely more to lose. The team may fall apart if the OL plays poorly and without Peters it's doubtful that it'll be better than last year. We might do poorly, get a new GM and HC who then trade Peters, and in that scenario, which of the two IYO would have taken the greatest hit, Peters or the team?

[dave mcbride]

Your last comment was denigrating me as to how much Dr. Z knows in contrast (implied) to what I do. Then you ran on about me foaming at the mouth, again, implied, and talked about how I care so much about what others think and whether or not I'm right or wrong.

This claim about implying things is false. You're overreading. I was referring to Pete Prisco and Michael Silver, who I think are poor writers. How are you reading yourself into this?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Guess I'm old school, then. I remember Bird and McHale playing for much less than guys coming out of college that had yet to touch a ball in the NBA, and they didn't whine, didn't hold out either.

 

Peters signed a contract. Was real happy at the time to get the big raise. It's his job to play to the best of his ability - he doesn't get to whine about the money now.

 

Well, then, don't be surprised whent he next top talent in Buffalo takes a walk at the end of their contract. Who would want to work with a franchise like the Bills?

[krazykat]

This claim about implying things is false. You're overreading. I was referring to Pete Prisco and Michael Silver, who I think are poor writers. How are you reading yourself into this?

Then make yourself more clear when quoting me please.

 

You quoted me on this topic, and then transitioned into stuff about how you thought I thought.

 

Boy, I have no idea why I would think you were addressing me. (yes, I'm being sarcastic)

 

Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about either or why you bothered to quote and respond to my comment. I can't tell you why.

[krazykat]

Well, then, don't be surprised whent he next top talent in Buffalo takes a walk at the end of their contract. Who would want to work with a franchise like the Bills?

We're already there. Why do you think we had to pay Dockery retarded money.

 

I hope all of the pie in the sky people here are right, because it's gonna be uglier than we've ever known in Buffalo after this season if we have another losing one.