DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Andy Reid and KC agree to deal

Quote:

---

So I take that you're "ok" with Banner being the shot caller now? Yes?

If we really hire Kelly and "look" for an more experienced "personnel" type guy, that'd be all left needed to know about Banner-Heckert, as it'd be a personal firing for sure then, as Heckert IS the best/experienced personnel guy on the market right now. Why not keep Heckert around and still negotiate with the "big name HCs" guaranteeing them to fire Heckert if they come on board? Now, we have the "inexperienced HC, left scrambling for an experienced personnel type" scenario...well played.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What do you put the odds at that we pretty much do a straight up GM swap with the chiefs?

---

Zero.

Pioli will still view himself as a true GM-type who calls the shots. In a structure where the coach will have greater input, Pioli won't have the kind of control he wants. That appears to be exactly why Pioli is out and Reid is in.

Besides, I refuse to believe that we'd be dumb enough to bring in the GM who thought it was a great idea to take Romeo Crennel and make him the HC, and import so many failed Browns players to his roster.

Banner and Haslam won't bring in an old dog like Pioli. They'll want a young'in who can grow with the franchise.

---

But they are considering a conniving turd like Lombardi? If it's just a stuffed shirt they want for a few measly mil/year I'd be willing to relocate.

---

LOL Are they? I haven't heard anything from the team about who they are or aren't considering as GM. They've not mentioned Lombardi.. In fact, the only people that are mentioning Lombardi is the media and I have no doubt that starts with,, wait for it.......Lombardi..

Quote:

---

So I take that you're "ok" with Banner being the shot caller now? Yes?

---

Let's be very clear about the context of the post you're quoting.

It's referencing who controls the negotiations for trades. That was Banner in Philly, and is Banner here in Cleveland.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'm now rather certain Banner had more control over personnel in Philly than people around here believe. Pit and I argued quite a bit about the semantics of it and I've since changed my belief.

So to answer your question, and to make sure we're speaking about the exact same thing, I'm not ok with Banner being the shot-caller on personnel, but he isn't going to be that. He's going to have a say, and yes, I'm ok with that. I'm absolutely ecstatic that he's going to be handling the trades and negotiations, because he has a long-standing track-record of success in that role with the Eagles.

Quote:

---

If we really hire Kelly and "look" for an more experienced "personnel" type guy, that'd be all left needed to know about Banner-Heckert, as it'd be a personal firing for sure then, as Heckert IS the best/experienced personnel guy on the market right now. Why not keep Heckert around and still negotiate with the "big name HCs" guaranteeing them to fire Heckert if they come on board?

---

Obviously Heckert wanted full control here and he wasn't about to get that. It would be beyond callous to keep Heckert on-board as a "just in case" situation. Out with the old failed regime, in with a new one. Yeah, Heckert made some good moves and I would like to have kept him, but he wasn't perfect, and he didn't fit with this new regime. The only way he would have deserved to stay is if this team absolutely blew the doors off the league coming down the stretch. Not only did we not do that, we pooped the bed. He had to go.

Quote:

---

My money still is on Banner being power hungry and wanted to be that GM type all along. Pretty much every word and move has hinted that way, but you actually seem to be on board with that, for whatever reasons

---

If wanting to be the CEO of a professional football team is power-hungry, hey, so am I. He was brought here to do just that. I believe he'll let people do their jobs but if there's a problem or a disagreement he's the final gavel. Would I prefer it to be different? Yes. I'd be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. I blasted Holmgren for being a meddler and a micro-manager because he gave Heckert and Shurmur their power...right up until the moment he decided to stick his nose in and tell them what he wanted them to do. That was pure garbage and the biggest reason why I wanted him out. (Ok, well, the whole story is that he's a meddler who crapped the bed when he pulled rank Had he pulled rank and made good moves, that would have been a different story) Since I believe Banner had more say in personnel than I thought a couple of months ago, I'm less-antsy now, but not totally happy. I am feeling better about it because at least he's going to cede the football decisions to his football people, even though he'll have final veto power. I believe that's close to what he had in Philly, which is why I'm not going ballistic.

Make no mistake about my position. There are many things about Banner being here which I like, but I'm not on board with everything. I don't happen to feel as though giving the head coach control over the roster is the ideal situation, but I do have an appreciation for putting good football people together in a room and coming to consensus.

Now I might as well get this out of the way as well, because someone is surely thinking it. What about Haslam?

I'm NOT ok with a situation where Haslam potentially gets to sit in the room at the Board table and have a say in personnel. That's the dumb, unlikeable rich kid in the neighborhood who has all the cool toys and will only allow the other kids to play with them if he gets to play as well. But as I've said since day 1, anything we can do to get Lerner out of the picture is a step in the right direction. I also must say I don't know how much input Haslam will have in this area, so it's a TBD with me.

Here's another digression but pertaining to Haslam. He is NOT like Jerry Jones, so people need to stop thinking in those terms. Jerry Jones is not only the owner, but he's also their GM/Personnel man. He picks the players, he makes the trades, and it's all his toy to play with. There are no other kids. Haslam has hired a CEO who will hire business people and football people to make decisions.

Those are two very different situations.

As for McCoy being the long-term QB here. Don't get worked up over that. "In the plans" may mean he's still on the roster and nothing more. I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Chip Kelly has not even remotely had time to evaluate film on McCoy, let alone anyone else in the NFL. He's been doing 80-hour weeks getting his Ducks ready to play. If I were to take anything away from that statement (other than the fact that it's an unsubstantiated rumor at a time filled with rumors) it's that Weeden is less secure than McCoy because he isn't mobile.

Before we took Weeds, I was content letting McCoy play out the string while we rebuilt. That didn't mean I wanted him as the long-term QB. If we switch offensive systems, my mind would remain open about doing that again. I felt that the Weeden selection was an act of desperation to try and jump-start the team to win NOW and save people's asses. That failed. We may have some pieces in place, but we're still a lot of pieces away from contending. If we go with a more up-tempo style offense and one in which a QB needs to be more mobile, well, while Weeds may have more upside than McCoy, one wasn't that much greater than the other. I don't believe in McCoy as the long-term guy, but it's possible he's a stop-gap while someone else is found.

I'm not going to jump to a conclusion just because some nobody reporter made an obscure statement. That's how people go around here...

Quote:

---

How many threads do you wanna have discussions on regarding Kelly, man?

---