DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Holmgren Officially Gone

Quote:

---

I just don't trust a guy who reminds me of a naked mole rat

---

Quote:

---

I just don't trust a guy who reminds me of a naked mole rat

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I just don't trust a guy who reminds me of a naked mole rat

---

Is Peen ghosting your account? lol

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I just don't trust a guy who reminds me of a naked mole rat

---

Is Peen ghosting your account? lol

---

Quote:

---

"you don't end up making decisions like not paying Sheldon Brown in his prime and settling for Ellis Hobbs. By letting Brian Dawkins go and settling for Quintin Demps. "

Although Pit never directly said Banner was in charge of personnel,the above statement certainly implies it.

---

Quote:

---

My particular feeling is this.. some posters have waged what amouts to a character hatchet job with regards to Banner.

---

I didn't plant the hatchet. Just reporting that it exists.



I said it from the beginning. This is what I believe happened in Philly and exactly what I fear will happen here in regards to Banner.

Kinda like you and the Holmgren thing, is it not?

Quote:

---

Jackson was so disgruntled with Banner and his contract situation last year that he consciously became a team cancer.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Jackson was so disgruntled with Banner and his contract situation last year that he consciously became a team cancer.

---

That's a reflection of Jackson's poor character, not Banner's tough-dealing ways.

I'd have been rough on him if I were Banner, too, hehe.

---

If you wish to select one incident with one player as some gauge, I guess you have evry right. But there is far more stories with far more players than one isolated incident.

It's the big picture. But you just go on and act like that was the only real issue here.



Banner claims to try to achieve a balance yet most in Philly hate him. Yeah, it's all about that one deal........

Quote:

---

My particular feeling is this.. some posters have waged what amouts to a character hatchet job with regards to Banner.

This new announcement is not news. We've known this was coming for awhile now. I figured Mike was out and I said so. I wanted him out. Garbage results.

Banner is in. Like it or not, he is in. What I say is we see what happens. NONE of us predicted a playoff season

---

Quote:

---

some posters have waged what amounts to a character hatchet job with regards to Banner.

---

Quote:

---

and we introduce your new president of the cleveland browns.

---

Quote:

---

If you wish to select one incident with one player as some gauge, I guess you have evry right. But there is far more stories with far more players than one isolated incident.

---

Hey, you highlighted that paragraph about Jackson. I just pointed out the inconsistency and irony of using Jackson, of all people, as a way to tie a noose around Banner's neck. Jackson has been a HUGE problem child since the day he arrived.

If people want to use examples to slam Banner, they aren't going to get any support by using a thug to get the point across.

Quote:

---

Banner claims to try to achieve a balance yet most in Philly hate him. Yeah, it's all about that one deal........

---

Yeah, it's all about pointing out the idiocy of using that one deal as an example.

Setting all that aside, I had no problem with Reid and Banner playing Good-cop, Bad-cop. That's part of the reason things worked. If Haslam wants to be Good-cop and Banner is totally comfy playing Bad-cop then that's all the better.

The great irony here is that so many fans trumpet how the people in the front office shouldn't listen to the fans or players when running an organization, yet saying Banner wasn't liked by those same people means he's going to fail.

Convenient.

Fear. That's what drives fans against Banner. They see how he's a tough guy on players, and fear the players will rebel. They fear the players won't be playing because of holdouts. They fear because Banner is known as tough the players won't want to come here as free agents.

Yeah, heard that song-and-dance before.

In the NFL, money talks. Any team can get virtually any free agent if they are willing to pay top dollar. That isn't news. The loyalty-card only carries so much weight, and that's usually reserved for the Deon Branches and Kevin Faulk's of the world who know their only shot at significant playing time are with the team that last cut them.

If there's one "negative" that plays in Banner's favor it's that the agents don't love him. If the agents did, that means he's a push-over.

Banner doesn't have to be liked. He only has to do the kind of job here that he did in Philly. Negotiating contracts is NOT the same as controlling personnel. As long as he isn't given that specific power there's more upside here than downside.

I mean, afterall, Banner was so hated that Philly was never able to sign any free agents.

Quote:

---

Just to make sure things are accurate, Joe Banner was NOT in charge of personnel in Philly. He did handle negotiations until Roseman took that over, but specifically stating he was in charge of personnel isn't accurate. I've seen nothing which would indicate he's going to have a role in personnel here.

---

Nice bait and switch con game there but it won't work. You claimed he didn't have any control over personnel. Yet I plainly had shown that he was "The Decider" in what players were offered, if other offers were matched which in effect are personnel decisions.

I'll be more "highlight specific" for you so you comptrhend the message better..

Quote:

---

I am implying he had the say in what money they were offered. Which in turn decided if they stayed or left.

Not someone telling him, "We need to offer player Y, X amunt of dollars so see how you can package that under the cap."
______________________________________-

Power play: Reid was hired in 1999 jointly by Eagles owner Jeff Lurie and Lurie’s good friend, Joe Banner, who was then the Eagles senior vice president. Banner would ascend to president of the Eagles and oversee one of the NFL’s pre-eminent business organizations.

If Reid was the face of the Eagles, Banner was their conscience. He always protected Lurie’s business backside. Banner specialized in managing the Eagles’ salary cap. Toward that end, Banner personally negotiated every major Eagles player contract.

With Banner calling the shots, the Eagles were ahead of the curve in terms of the salary cap. While Reid was coaching the team to nine playoff appearances in 13 seasons, Banner was keeping the Eagles nimble by negotiating with a hard-line approach. Banner refused to lose any battle with a player.

Because of his intractable nature, Banner became an unpopular figure in Philadelphia. Players hated him, and fans sided with the players. Banner engaged contract battles with popular players such as Brian Dawkins, Brian Westbrook, Asante Samuel, and DeSean Jackson. Banner’s final victory over Jackson proved a Pyrrhic one.

Wow! There were four players mentioned there, not just one. Imagine that!

Jackson was so disgruntled with Banner and his contract situation last year that he consciously became a team cancer. He was accused of quitting in games and infecting the locker room. The Eagles, loaded with talent and heralded as a Super Bowl contender in 2011, imploded and lost eight of their first 11 games, falling out of the NFC race early.

Reid is one of the most beloved coaches among players. But Banner’s insistence on winning every negotiation – to the extent of rubbing the nose of every victim into the ground – made Reid’s job most difficult.

So Reid appealed to Lurie’s lifelong desire to win a Super Bowl, something the Eagles have never accomplished. Reid needed a happier locker room. For that to happen, players like Jackson and running back LeSean McCoy had to be given new, lucrative contracts. That contradicted Banner’s philosophy.

Lurie sided with Reid, and Banner, in a shocking development, announced his departure in June.

Banner framed his exit as a desire to move on to bigger and better things, perhaps to re-start an organization as a part owner. One of Banner’s friends in the Philadelphia media, Howard Eskin, said via Twitter that Banner was looking into three franchises believed to be for sale – the Bills, Rams and Browns.

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=4321

_______________________________________

Being a tough negotiator is one thing, but being so hard nosed about everything can cause a lot of trouble within a locker room.

People can portray this in any light they choose, but no matter how you slice it, when you're so hard nosed people have to step in, as has been reported on later contracts just to keep your top talent, sometimes your ego can get in the way of the betterment of your team.

---

It wasn't about Jackson at all. Jackson was one ingrediant in a much bigger picture here. The article indicated as much.

It also told the story of how Banner was in sole control of what players were offered which is directly connected to players staying or going. This does make it personnel issues.

Now go ahead and act like I was trying to say something else. Go ahead and pretend the article was about Jackson. Go ahead and say Basnner had no bearing in personnel issues like you did before.



But people can read and you're really not all that slick.

Quote:

---

But people can read

---

Quote:

---

We know Holmgren blew the RG3 deal. We don't know that Banner ever acted on his own against the wishes of anyone else within the organization. Therefore, he isn't a "decider." He's a "negotiator." He is not a "personnel guy."

But I do understand the fear. Change often brings that...

---

Quote:

---

Are they important? Yes. Is Joe Banner a personnel guy in the same vein as someone who targets which guys we go after? Not even remotely close.

---

Quote:

---

I think if there were articles out there that indicated the Eagles lost a guy because Banner played hard-ball with them, then we'd have a story. Until then it's just hyperbole and spin. Sure, the Eagles lost players because the organization didn't choose to offer them top-dollar, but that isn't the same.

---

Quote:

---

It's no more the same as a cap-guru is the same as a personnel man.

---

Quote:

---

We know Holmgren blew the RG3 deal.

---

Quote:

---

We don't know that Banner ever acted on his own against the wishes of anyone else within the organization. Therefore, he isn't a "decider." He's a "negotiator." He is not a "personnel guy."

---

Quote:

---

But I do understand the fear. Change often brings that...

---

Quote:

---

ROFL Mike blew the RG3 deal when the skins offered more then any other team in history ever. You have a nice way of making stuff up. yeah was mike ticked sounded like but but we offered more then we should have and lost. End of story.

---

Quote:

---

That's not really the question I was posing. The question is, does he have final say in how much they're offered, how hard we go after them and does he have final say on what lengths we're willing to go to in order to get them?

Those are some of the choices that will mold our roster.

---

Those are fair questions, and I'd love to know the answers. Yet I haven't seen any evidence which suggests he'll have any more influence than other guys who've done his job elsewhere in the league. I'm also certain that no one "bean counter" has ever had that final say. If he ultimately does have more influence than an actual GM, then we could be in trouble, but my point is that we have zero evidence of that, so the fear and loathing of and for Banner is kinda shocking.

Quote:

---

We have no way of knowing that. It seems that Lurie felt better about someone else handling these negotiations for some reason and or reasons. There are many articles that strongly indicate it was Banner who held the cards when it came to player negotiations and that Ried was tired of losing players via Banner.

---

Lurie left the negotiations to the professional. I'd be good with that. Regarding Reid, yes, there are articles suggesting a difference of opinion between Reid and Banner, but Reid has always wanted absolute power with the Eagles. He's been getting it, and as of late, those moves are causing him to find himself on the hot-seat.

My point there is that yes, there was probably a power-struggle between Reid and Banner. I have no proof of that but based on what I've read over the years I believe it. But it's still only a power-struggle between two men. We can't draw any conclusions when trying to pass judgment against one guy or another within that struggle. We know Reid won, but we don't know if that was a good thing or a bad thing for the Eagles, and thus we don't know if Banner was doing well or poorly.

Quote:

---

That depends on who has the final say in an given organization. Or are you saying all 32 NFL FO's are a cookie cutter type deal and they are all ran exactly the same?

---

Far from it. I'm saying that we've essentially rarely ever heard of the cap-guys having a major influence on personnel. Yes, Banner played a role in how the negotiations went in the past, but I don't recall ever seeing anything that suggested he chose which players to go after, or how his negotiations caused the Eagles to lose players. To that end, I don't feel as though we can surmise that he controlled the rosters of the Eagles any more than other cap guys in the league. If there's proof out there I'd love to see it, and I don't mean that in a snarky way ( this time ).

I think people are making assumptions that Banner was part of the problem which is why he split the sheets with the Eagles. I say there's a definitive difference between being a problem and losing a power-struggle. It looks like he lost the struggle, but we've no idea if he was right or wrong.

Quote:

---

There's a big difference between caution and fear. Those who blindly follow without airing on the side of caution are those who are easily mislead.

---

Hehehe...Hmmm...When I've read your posts on this subject, I see something more negative than caution.

Quote:

---

But in his role as the team’s salary cap wizard and chief contract negotiator, Banner had a great deal of influence over many of those personnel decisions.

---

I fully agree with that statement. That is a fact. Yet doesn't ever salary cap guy and chief contract negotiator have a great deal of influence in that way?

The fear is that Banner is going to have more influence than most guys at his position, and because he's been the bad-cop over in Philly and lost the fight with Reid, it's somehow manifested itself into this great sense of trepidation and gloom. I haven't seen anything that would suggest that's going to be the case. Now if I do start to see those signs, well, that'd be a different story. Until then, I just haven't seen anything which indicates this is going to happen. We don't even know what his role will be as the CEO. I take that in such a manner to suggest he's going to be running the business side, not the football side, and because of that, I don't believe he'll have any more influence on personnel than any other bean-counter.

Now I'll tell you what I DO believe bringing in Banner means. I have no proof to point at as validation for my belief, but I think Haslam knows a shrewd business man when he see's one, and Banner is that guy. Haslam gives me the impression that he's a very progressive thinker and businessman, and he's going to put the tough-dealing ways of Banner to work for him. That's going to mean advancements in the marketing and growth of the business, which is probably going to mean upgrades to things, which of course will mean bigger charges for the fans. I think he's going to go by the old adage of "you gotta spend money to make money" but that he's going to pass that cost along to the customers, hehe.

Quote:

---

Theree are plenty of refrances I can show that say Ried wanted the Jackson deal done but banner wouldn't do it.

---

Oh, I fully believe that to be factual, but my point is that we don't know if the Reid was being reasonable or irrational. I don't know of many teams that would immediately give big bucks to a player who visibly quit on the team and was suspended. Banner, being a business man, probably wouldn't be keen on taking that route.

Frankly, as it pertains to DeSean Jackson and his contract negotiations, had you given me the scenario ahead of time and asked me to predict how Banner and then Reid would react, I'd fully believed that Banner wouldn't want to do the deal but that Reid would. I don't believe in absolute power in an NFL organization, so I don't view the rift between Banner and Reid as a negative.

Quote:

---

U can complain and be "embarassed" for the way Mike cried afterword, but give him his due for trying to do what he thought was best at the time and made a offer that he felt was more than fair.

---

I just want to make sure of what you're asking of me:

You want me to give him credit for...trying.

Somehow, I don't think that's how they keep score in the NFL. I don't really remember any of the articles stating the following:

Quote:

---

"Mike Holmgren lost out to a team with less ammunition and looks like a dope up there frumbling, but God bless his heart for trying. Mike....we salute you!"

---

Quote:

---

It's easy folks...it's about trust in WHAT these FO guys say..and I think everyone can agree that H&H, for all their mistakes, have done pretty much THAT what they promised: to build through the draft

---

I DO NOT remember anyone from the FO coaching staff saying they were going to re-build much less build through the draft.

What was said?

"We are about winning".

"Any other talk other then talk of winning is wasted talk".

"We will NOT make excuses".

"Will get this offense fixed".

But what this list actually at least partially is a list of failures and false promises. (liar)

But I honestly do NOT remember anyone coming out and saying we are building through the draft although it’s pretty obvious that is the thought process.

But given the statements made by MH over the course of the time he has been here I think he has been an absolute failure..........

Complete and utter and so does Haslam apparently............. I confess I concur!!!! Thank God we have a new owner and have finally rid ourselves of the Fake One….


JMHO

BTTB

Quote:

---

Holmgren and Heckert have stated they are building the right way and that is through the draft. They wanted to avoid the flash in the pan winning season and build a sustainable winning franchise. They have made similar statements many times.

---

Quote:

---

We are talking about giving up 3 1st round picks and a high 2nd to move up 2 spots. To me that is

Thats not blowing it. Its getting outbid.

---

Regardless how you or I or anyone else feels, the proof is that Holmgren didn't make his best offer. He didn't offer the absolute most he'd intended on paying. He proved that by trying to up his offer. Had he not tried to up his offer, he could have said "We offered the absolute most we could have in order to feel as though we'd retain the ability to continue to build a team. The Redskins made a better offer. Goodluck to them."

The problem is that he miscalculated, misjudged, and missed the mark. There isn't anything else to call that besides a failure.

Quote:

---

Now, to quote you It's not about whether or not the move ultimately would have been great or not. You judge on whether or not the job got done. In that case, it didn't.

I disagree.

Did people judge the Walker trade on the fact that it got done or the results for the teams of that trade?

---

Now you're talking about two VERY different discussions.

In the Walker deal, BOTH teams got what they wanted. The judgment comes from the success of the deal.

In the Holmgren/RG3 deal, Holmgren failed to get the player he wanted in spite of the fact he had more ammo. He simply played his hand the wrong way.

Two VERY different scenarios.

Quote:

---

So I disagree. In the end Washington will be graded on what they gave up ,as they should be, and we will be an after thought because we didnt offer more.

---

Yes, Washington will be judged on what they gave up, but again, that's a different discussion. Are we talking about whether RG3 was worth it, or are we talking about how Holmgren played his hand and whether or not he played it well?

Quote:

---

So because you believe he blew it and I believe he was offering to much then we can offically keep score.

---

No sir. We can't keep score. We aren't playing the same game.

During the flow of this discussion and others, I haven't been asked, nor have I commented on, whether or not the Redskins paid too much or got value for RG3. Why is that? Because that's a totally different discussion.

I believe it's very fair to state that Holmgren screwed up the RG3 deal, and the proof is given when he came back and made a second, better offer. Where he failed was how he didn't make his best offer as instructed.

Now it's inevitable that someone would say I couldn't have done better. My response would be that it isn't my job to make that decision. Holmgren is being paid a life-times amount of money each and every year to make the tough calls. He made a calculated gamble and he lost, and I think it's very fair to judge him on that move.

The interesting part, as you noted, will be to see whether or not the price paid for RG3 was worth it.

Imagine if it turns out it was...how much will the next great QB cost? 4 1st round picks?

Quote:

---

I'm confused here.

Holmgren made his offer. Washington chose an offer that was inferior to his offer.

What'd the guy do wrong again? His was the highest bid and it was not accepted.

Now I'd be upset if I was a Washington fan knowing that but I don't pin this on Holmgren.

---

Quote:

---

YOU can say otherwise, but the rest of the FOOTBALL WORLD says he blew it BADLY

---