DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Banner speaks to Pluto Part 1.

Quote:

---

I remember pretty much the WHOLE board fearing Banner having ANY say in football related matters and NOBODY wanted Lombardi in any capacity.

---

Quote:

---

Well, half a year later, the same crowd is mostly pom pom cheerleading the same feared tandem of Banner-Lombardi

---

Quote:

---

Sure, people can change their opinions, but a 180 like most on here did without even a game played, to me is as laughable as mac's excursion into psychoanalysis....let's not forget that

---

I don't think everyone has "changed their minds" as, at least speaking for me, are in more of a wait and see mode.

I do have concerns about Banner and Lombardi. Even ddub admitted that most of the info he saw in regards to Banner was negative. I did the same research and came up with the same thing. However, I'm not making bold failure predictions at this early stage.

I've watched and seen the moves made so far. And a couple of them are boom or bust moves. I think both Kruger, considering his price, and with Mingo being so raw, we will know a lot about their evaluations sooner than later.

I haven't seen anything that jumps out at me as something to be highly critical of thus far. But as with previous FO's, I'm in a wait and see mode. My objective is to see this team become a winner. If this group can do it, then so be it.

I liked the signing of Kruger but it is a bold move. I'm not sold on Mingo but once again, it's a bold move. Time will tell how it pays off.

I do find it funny how it seems a group that was so mistrusted a short time ago, has people like Vers attacking anyone that questions any moves by this FO. Trying to suggest you must feel like a jilted lover by the removal of the last regime.



That part is pretty comical.

People do seem to rally around the new FO and I see it more as that is who we have and looking for the positive. I also see it as that they really haven't seen any major moves made that should strongly be questioned. And to this point, I agree with them.

But only in the long haul will we know the answers here. Just as with most every other regime, people look for a cause to be positive. And we've seen a few so far. But as with almost every regime, we have all thought we've seen such things before.

JMHO

Quote:

---

I will like and accept Banner when we start winning and not before that. Winning is all that matters and I'm completely past any notion of getting fired up for something or someone that hasn't proven anything.

Go earn some adulation, Mr. Banner. You haven't done anything, yet.

---

Quote:

---

You're wrong.

---

Quote:

---

More evidence of your ability to tolerate other posters' opinions, I presume.

---

Quote:

---

But you both have the right to make your case. However, crazy either one may seem.

---

Quote:

---

actually, he's done quite a bit. We've just got 0% of precincts reporting so far. We'll see how it turns out. I hope for the best, expect the worst. I'm a Browns fan... what else can I do?

---

Quote:

---

--Anything relating to football? Anyone?

---

On taking over ...

Q: Why did you want to run the Browns?

A: After leaving (the Eagles), I was looking for a real challenging situation. I met Jimmy [Haslam] in June [2012]. He was interested in owning an NFL team. We knew the Browns could be available. If we were going to do something together near-term, this is where we'd do it.

True, the only way to do something together would be the Browns since they were the only team available for sale.

However, there may have been some other FO jobs open for which he could have applied. But I'm very doubtful that anyone, other than Haslem, would have hired him to oversee the football-side of a team since he'd never been in that role before. Not saying it's good or bad or that he is qualified or not. Just that he'd never been in that role so it would have been tough for him to land a job like that. As a salary cap guru, contract negotiator or many other executive level jobs he may have been snapped up by another team in a hurry.



Q: Does all the losing worry you?

A: No. Nor does it scare me. That's because everything not right is fixable, and everything out of your control is very good.

I'll wait until he expands...

Q: Please explain.

A: The things you can't control are so positive. The fan base is passionate. The market wants you to succeed so much. The media can create a lot of excitement if you are going well. If you do things right, you can attract coaches and players here. These things are not present in every NFL city.

He is so right in all those things he mentioned. What he didn't mention, and if I were a hater I'd accuse him of hiding the fact, is that the roster was very attractive.

The aging vets had already been abandoned, talented youth had already been drafted to replace them and a few of them had a year under their belt. Along with that is a probowl/Hall of Fame LT, 3/5ths of a quality OL and a couple of defensive players who are above average at their positions. Add in a RB that everyone considered the best since AD.

THAT is very attractive and also out of his control because he could have been coming in with the roster as it was at the end of the 2009 season which would have been a much tougher place to start from. It would have taken two or three years to get it where it is now.

Now before this starts a Heckert vs Banner debate I'm not talking about giving credit to anyone. Only that it is what it is. That's what Banner was talking about. Positive things that are/were not in his control. This is the situation the new owner and regime inherited. There is still a lot to do

Q: So why all the losing?

A: Look at what can be controlled: The quality of the team, from the front office to the coaches to the players. You have to pick the right people.

Brilliant! "Look at what can be controlled". Without naming names he insinuates that no prior regime had all the right people here at the same time. Hence, all the losing. He also insinuates that he has, will or is otherwise able to pick the right people to get back on a winning track. I don't doubt that until I see a replay of all the losing.

Q: How did you see the Browns when you were running the Philadelphia Eagles?

A: We viewed Cleveland as a totally untapped, phenomenal football market. The opportunity to do something special is here, but it seems no one has been able to seize it.

Succinct and amazingly complete in it's conciseness. This is one of the things that has won me over with Banner. He can say a lot using very few words. Being on to pontificate and use very many words to say little I have an appreciation for that.

Q: Can you understand why fans would doubt that it will be any different now?

A: If I were a football fan here, that's what I'd be saying. I get it. Not only have these fans lost a lot of games, they lost their team for a while. They have been through so much.

Holmgren said the same thing. That doesn't mean anything other than they both got that. They both understood what so much losing does to a fanbase.

Q: Why can that change?

A: If you look at teams that have made significant turnover in their front office and coaching staff, you know fairly quickly if they are on the right track. It's not too long that some of the wins start to come ... that's different than thinking you're on the right track, but the wins aren't starting to follow.

He just, knowingly, made himself accountable. He does it with others and apparently he holds himself to the same responsibility.

Q: So what will the record be this year?

A: I'm not going to get into that, but it shouldn't take very long for fans to see that things look different.

Good answer. Between the lines... Look for improvement. Don't particularly look for additional wins. If we fans are smart that's exactly what we'll do. We know how to spot improvement. We've been tasked to look for it before. I'm not sure we've seen much of it in a hurry but believe we just may see it this season.

On making changes ...

Q: Why did you replace virtually all the key people in the front office and coaching staff, except special teams coordinator Chris Tabor?

A: We didn't come into this expecting to make this many changes. But yes, we turned over the organization.

Still say Pluto should have mentioned Warhop. Not doing so it's mindful of a national media guy who didn't do enough homework. With some of the posts on the subject and knowing Pluto's professionalism he may have had a good reason for it.

Banner didn't actually answer the question: Why? What he did was agreed that yes, we turned over the organization.

Q: But why?

A: We needed a determination, a relentless mindset that is more than just winning a game or two next season. We don't want to settle for just getting better, maybe making the playoffs.

So Pluto presses and gets a very good answer in the "relentless mindset" comment. He wanted the attack philosophy to be not only a matter of scheme but also a characteristic of the personalities of the staff.

Q: So what is the goal?

A: Some people are intimidated about setting the bar really high. We want to build a Super Bowl team. For some people, that's too much pressure. And some people may say, "You won five games, what are you talking about the Super Bowl for?"

Superbowl should always be the goal. I believe Banner, with his tough stance on players, which I believe he has with everyone else in the organization as well, constantly applies the "pressure" to everyone. This is something this team has needed for years. He can say to the fans, "look for improvement", while not wanting to predict more wins initially, but to the members of the organization I'm sure he uses that weaselly, squinty-looking, little man mean face to push them to the extreme. Relentless mindset is what I'm sure he demands from everybody.

On role models ...

Q: Why are you talking about the Super Bowl when you have not won more than five games in a season since 2007?

A: Because that is our ultimate goal. We've studied teams that made the Super Bowl. We need to play the style of game that they do.

Banner clumsily sets up the next question.

Q: Like who?

A: You take the Packers, 49ers, Ravens and Pittsburgh. They have recently been to Super Bowls. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are in our division. They are consistent winners.

To easy an answer. Any of us could have done it. But it made his point and answered the question he wanted to answer.

Q: Is that why you switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense?

A: Most good teams play an attacking 3-4 defense. Every offensive coach we talked to in the off-season said the attacking 3-4 defense was the hardest to face, so that's what we need to play.

He'd discovered this before the "off-season". He's known it all along. But it fits the attack philosophy and needed to be said to the hangers on who liked what Juron was doing.

Q: And on offense?

A: You have to throw the ball downfield -- attack. Not all the time, but you have to be able to do it. That's how Chud (head coach Rob Chudzinski) and Norv (Turner, offensive coordinator) play the game.

More attack philosophy.

Q: How will the changes show this season?

A: We will deliver a team that plays the style that winning teams play -- aggressive, attacking and smart.

More attack philosophy.

Q: How many players do you think will be around when the team reaches what you call: "really good"?

A: When [coach] Andy Reid was hired in Philadelphia, we asked how many of our 22 starters would be good enough to play for us when we compete for a championship? The answer was 11. I think that's comparable here, but I'm not going to name them.

Neither will I name them. We have a team of young, inexperienced players who need to be seen in these new schemes before any such number can be named. To name them now would be to increase or decrease that number once we've seen this season play out.

On GM Michael Lombardi ...

Q: Why hire Lombardi when you know he would not be a popular choice?

A: I have a 16-year relationship with him. I believe of the people available that I knew or people that may have become available, he gives us the best chance to win.

"Best chance to win". Cliche answer when you don't wish to elaborate. No one can argue with "best chance to win"

Q: But didn't you only work one year with him?

A: I ran a draft with him in Philly in 1998. We believe it's still one of the best drafts. (The Eagles picked four players who made Pro Bowls and traded for Hugh Douglas, another Pro Bowler.)

I could see that draft giving him pride and encouragement. I think it's not as simple as some of the posts I've read that claim he hired Lombardi because he would be his "Yes man". You will find that you need someone who is not afraid to argue with you to the degree of yelling and fighting over a disagreement on a decision. Perhaps he and Lombardi have a relationship like that. Two guys who can bring it without it effecting the long-term relationship. I have a friend like that.

Q: When Reid was hired as coach (in 1999), why didn't Lombardi stay with the Eagles as player personnel director?

A: I was not the sole decision-maker at the time of who was going to hold that job. (Banner was vice president in 1999, not promoted to president until 2001.)

He knew that answer but blew by it.

"He [Tom Modrak-director of football operations (see link at bottom of post) ] fired pro personnel director Mike Lombardi last week, less than a month after the Eagles gave Lombardi the title and a one-year contract.

``We probably were going in different directions. We had different philosophies,'' Modrak said, but declined to specify those differences. ``I felt it was what needed to be done at the time.''

Banner was not the sole decision-maker but he knew the reason why. Really no point in him getting into that other than to clear himself of firing Lombardi, a decision which he may or may not have agreed with.

Q: So you stayed in touch with Lombardi?

A: Yes, I've talked with him about players and drafts. Absolutely, I knew he would not be a popular choice, and it would make me less popular.

Good friends who work good together. Plus, he knew Cleveland's opinion of Lombardi but seems true to his philosophy of not needing to be popular by making choices against the majority.

Q: That didn't matter?

A: To a fault, I'm guilty of doing what I think is best to win ... and staying strong about it as to opposed to worrying about what is popular. You have to be prepared to make tough decisions, having the guts to stand up and make the decision.

I admire this characteristic and he has done this his whole career. Done what he felt was best to win even while taking a ton of flack for it.

On how the draft works ...

Q: Who is drafting and picking the players?

A: Everyone successful in sports is good at collaborating, putting together a team of people who work together.

I don't know why I don't get how this answer doesn't seem in sync with the question.

Q: Who is in the draft room?

A: It's Mike [Lombardi], [Player Personnel Director] Ray Farmer, Chud, Jimmy [Haslam] and myself. Jimmy is not grading players, but he wants to know about their character. He asks challenging questions. But it's the four of us [Lombardi, Farmer, Chudzinski and Banner] who make the decision.

Just the facts other than his opinion of throwing Haslem a bone in saying he asks challenging questions.

Q: But someone has the final word, right?

A: Unambiguously, the answer is me. No matter if I'm making the decision or those we employ are making it, I'm accountable. I'm perfectly willing to take the blame. Hopefully, it goes well, and (everyone) gets some credit.

So he doesn't say who has final say but only that he will be accountable for any mistakes (or presumably great picks). If Lombardi is the GM then he should have the final say but Banner, for some reason, doesn't say that. It does sound like he is protecting everyone else or in mac's words: Trying to take all the credit.

On draft day trades ...

Q: Were you expecting criticism for trading your fourth round and fifth round picks this season for picks next season?

A: I knew it needed to be explained, but I didn't think it would be viewed so negatively.

It never should have been viewed so negatively. If they felt there were no starter quality guys at those spots at positions they needed why take a deep depth chart backup at positions you already have deep depth chart backups. We have two extra picks for next year and one of them is in the 3rd round.

Q: OK, explain it.

A: We were in a weak draft in the fourth and fifth rounds. We had a chance to turn them into third- and fourth-round picks next season in a strong draft. ... That's a no-brainer.

Weak draft in the fourth and fifth rounds does not necessarily mean there was no talent there. I can simply mean that the talent was not the skill sets or positions needed by the Browns.

Q: You really know the draft in those rounds will be stronger next year?

A: You don't know [positively], but you've done enough work to have an opinion. But even if it's a weak draft again, I'd rather have a third and fourth rounders in a weak draft than a fourth and fifth-rounder.

No-brainer for a team who already has a majority of their roster who needs to be evaluated.

Q: But you traded a pick to the Steelers ...

A: And we're used to being out-smarted by the Steelers. I can understand why fans think that. But hopefully, that's not the case.

His statement that you never make a trade without thinking you are getting the better of the deal, then trading within the division is a no-brainer if you are getting the better of the deal. You are making youself better while making them worse. Of course things don't always work out that way but if you feel the risk is in your favor then you go for it.

On making trades ...

Q: Why do you say that you must get an advantage in a trade?

A: If you don't think you're getting the better of it, then don't trade. If you make that the criteria -- getting the better of it -- then if you trade in or out of the division, it doesn't matter. It's still an extra plus.

This is just Pluto giving Banner a chance to explain. Banner probably wanted this question.

Q: But if you're wrong ...

A: We're not pretending we get it 100 percent right, but I think we've already shown we've made some good trades.

They have made some good trades. Any trade is a risk you must be willing to take.

Q: Like what?

A: We got draft picks for Colt McCoy (Browns traded McCoy and a sixth-round pick to the 49ers for a fifth- and seventh-round pick) when the league thought he'd get cut. That's the kind of move that good teams make.

Good examples.

Q: What else?

A: We picked up [veteran Miami receiver] Davone Bess without giving up anything that would hurt us [a fifth-rounder]. We signed him to an extension so he'll be with us when we get stronger. Picking up [running back] Dion Lewis [from Eagles] is a good move.

The follow-up question Banner wanted.

Q: So these moves reveal what?

A: People should start to see that other teams have made moves like these, but not the Browns. But that's changing.

So Banner is not the inventor of making moves like these.

On signing free agents ...

Q: Why didn't you make a bigger impact in free agency?

A: We spent nearly $90 million on free agents, and more than half of that is guaranteed. That's a big change for this organization. We targeted [Paul] Kruger and [Desmond] Bryant. How many times has this organization gone 2-for-2 in free agency when at least six other teams wanted those players?

Didn't answer why no bigger impact. Personally I would have liked Pluto to ask him why they didn't go harder after a CB opposite Haden other than to focus on one guy who ultimately signed with Miami.

Q: Doesn't it just come down to money?

A: At this level, the offers are comparable. We were able to sell them on the coaches, the city and schemes we plan to run. This feels different to me [when it comes to the Browns].

Coaches and schemes. I highly doubt they were sold on the city.

Q: Kruger and Bryant are good defensive players, but are they game changers?

A: You rarely get a guy who fixes your team in free agency. You can get guys who can really help you, and we did that. We view free agency and the draft together, and because we got the guys we wanted in free agency, we could trade some of the draft picks for future picks.

The trading picks for future picks because of the FA's they signed is a lame way to further justify that. Those picks were not going to be the quality of the FA's they signed.

Q: How do you see free agency?

A: Winning teams are built through the draft, and by retaining their best players. Some winning teams use free agency to an extent, others hardly use it. But you don't build a winner mostly through free agency.

Totally agree. Now extend a couple of contracts. I feel not having already extended Mack and Ward Banner is simply saying, "Let me see what you can do first" when no further evaluation is needed. Just another way of pressuring players to improve. Of course, this is nothing new. It's been done before.

On the coaching staff ...

Q: Why did you hire Rob Chudzinski, a rookie head coach?

A: Winning teams have aggressive head coaches. We didn't focus on a young coach, old coach, experienced coach or college coach. I wanted a strong leader who is passionate and intense and can put together a quality staff.

I remember an article from back in '07 that described Chud running around the field yelling and demanding players be accountable for being in the right position, running the correct routes and generally being on everyone's asses to keep the pace up and the practice sharp. Now that's probably not unusual for a coordinator but the term "aggressive" coaches reminds me of that old article featuring Chud. (I gave up trying to find it. I set a time limit and it expried)

Q: Did you know that by hiring Chudzinski, you'd also add Norv Turner [offensive coordinator] and Ray Horton [defensive coordinator]?

A: We knew Chud could bring Norv along. We thought we could get Ray Horton. That staff with Chud replicates what winning teams do -- they have good coordinators on both sides of the ball.

Chud's no chump. He's well respected. No surprising Norv and Horton would climb aboard.

Q: Did you interview Horton for head coach?

A: Yes, and he's very impressive. I'm more impressed with him now than when I first interviewed him. He is solid, even-keeled and determined. He relates to players ... it's outstanding!

My only worry is that just before or just after we make a splash Horton will be gone to take a HC gig. Hopefully the FO is already searching out his replacement because I fear it will be sooner rather than later.

Q: You first tried to hire Chip Kelly, but he went to Philadelphia -- your old team -- instead. Does that bother you?

A: I don't want to get into any of that. ... I choose to look forward and I really like our coaching staff.

As I remember the Browns never made Kelly an offer. Good answer by Banner. He can answer that question in a book when he retires.

On Haslam's legal problems ...

Q: Do you understand why some fans are nervous about the FBI investigation in Haslam's Pilot Flying J?

A: I know why people would be unsettled by it. But at the same time, fans can trust what we said about it. Jimmy would tell you that he's disappointed by what happened. I think he has apologized to Tennessee [the company's home state] and to Cleveland.

What can he say?

Q: How does this impact the Browns?

A: As it relates to the day-to-day operation of running the Browns, it will be unaffected by it.

What can he say?

Q: Even though Haslam will have to pay millions in lawsuits and legal fees?

A: Nothing is going to happen that will alter that vision or affect our ability to run the franchise.

As everyone knows, Haslem has enough personal money to pay all the lawsuits and legal fees. None of the Browns money will be needed.

Q: Is the team for sale?

A: The team is not for sale. That's a totally legitimate question. It's why Jimmy answered it earlier [in a press conference] and why I'm doing the same now. Unambiguously, it's not for sale.

How bizarre would it be for Haslem to offer the team for sale before they even play a game under his ownership?

Q: Do you realize that a few months before Haslam bought the Browns, there were rumors that the team was for sale and the team put out a statement saying it was not for sale?

A: I just know that it's important for the public to be able to trust us, so that when moments [Haslam's legal issues] like this come up, we have a track record of being truthful.

How bizarre would it be for Haslem to offer the team for sale before they even play a game under his ownership?

On possible stadium renovations ...

Q: Are you really going to put $100 million into revamping the stadium?

A: We have hired a construction company and an architectural company. It's too early to know what we will do, or even what is possible to do. We don't know all the elements involved or what the cost will be.

Meh

Q: So it's research at this point?

A: We are waiting to find out what is possible, and that could take four to 12 weeks.

Meh

Q: Who will pay for the renovation?

A: Until we get the [reports] and know what is possible -- and what it costs -- I can't answer that question.

Meh


On Trent Richardson ...

Q: Can he be an impact player?

A: He has tremendous talent. He wants to be great. He is now in a system to do it. He's worked hard in the off-season and indications are encouraging.

About all you can say.

Q: But he had injuries last season, and again in the mini-camps this year, right?

A: You don't like to see collective injuries. But they don't seem to be injuries that will necessarily repeat. We've put him on a new program of training, nutrition and even to help him sleep. But you are right, he has to get on the field -- so we'll wait and see.

Slight push and pressure.

On Brandon Weeden ...


Q: What is your impression of your quarterback?

A: Everyone has been encouraged by how hard he has worked. He has made progress. We believe this system -- throwing from the shotgun and throwing more downfield -- is more likely to fit him.

Sure

Q: Do you think he can be a long-term answer at quarterback?

A: The first thing you ask is how he throws the ball? He throws it very well. We have to see how he does with the intangible aspects. If they all come together, there are a lot of possibilities. But we have to wait and see.

"Intangible aspects" = decision making. We will have to wait and see because there's nothing else we can do but play Campbell.

Q: If quarterback the most important position on the field, so why didn't you bring in someone else to start?

A: I'm going to give a broad answer, starting with our defense. We knew we had to change our defense. We had to get faster and get more pressure on the quarterback. We went out and got players to do that. We were ready to charge ahead on defense.

So defense over offense. What about there were no quality QB's available?

Q: But the quarterback ...

A: On offense, we want to see what develops before making big changes, other than the scheme. And the change on offense is just as big as from the 4-3 to the 3-4 on defense.

Good answer. Besides, who would be a quality QB available in the off season?

Q: Why didn't you change many of the players on offense?

A: It's hard to know their potential because so many of them -- not just Brandon -- are so young. Also, the coaches looked at Brandon and some of the others and saw enough there to want to see more. [The coaches'] input is very important on this.

Exactly the correct action in my opinion. Why make changes when you don't even know who you have that will be successful in this scheme?

On Josh Gordon ...

Q: What was your reaction when Gordon flunked the NFL drug test and was suspended for two games?

A: It's a concern. We're going to create an environment here where people are going to be held accountable and the expectations are going to be high.

He was livid! You can bet on that. Again with the pressure on Gordon.

Q: How does that apply to Gordon?

A: We want to give everyone a chance to succeed. We want to support him. He's a player with a chance to become a valuable part of this team.

And a bit of encouragement

Q: So what's the approach?

A: First, [the failed drug test] is a concern and disappointment. At the same time, we're doubling down and we've got to find a way to support and help him be what he can be as a player -- and help us be a better football team.

Meaning=the guy's a pain in the ass but what else can we do but hope he gets it?

Q: Does he know this is a problem?

A: Yes, he gets it. Chud has said [Gordon] has done everything we've asked him to do. That's true. But it's early. He can't remove himself from this moment. He can't forget what happened.

Keep that pressure on

On the Browns' future ...

Q: What is your biggest challenge?

A: Time. Our goal is to build a Super Bowl team. You know that going into 2013, you don't have everything you need to win a Super Bowl.

Time. Exactly. It hard to take the time when the fanbase wants to win now. What a tightrope act to do what you know is right while explaining that "it's a process:

Q: So what drives you?

A: Every day, I hear from fans on how it would feel if the team got really good. I'm anxious to deliver that. Jimmy, Mike, Chud ... all of us want to make it happen. There is a great sense of urgency. We need to get there reasonably fast -- being really good -- but that will hard.

He wants it just like we do. After leaving Philly he wants desperately to redeem himself in a role he's always wanted.

Q: Why can you make it happen?

A: I was involved in a turnaround situation in Philadelphia. You can look at many of our people, they have been with teams that had been losing and turned it around.

Experience. He's been there and seen it work. So has Norv, so has Chud (though he also watched it fall apart to injuries here)

Q: What is your hope for the Browns?

A: I want a team where if it wins 10 games [but doesn't do well in the playoffs], fans are upset. I want to raise and re-align expectations so that people can talk about how our team can get really good and stay really good. I want to see what that would be like for the fans and this city, I want to feel that passion and intensity for the Browns when we really start to win. That will be something.

Yes sir, that will be something. Make it happen.


In a way, not a lot of football to be discussed using the format I used. A lot of questions that were designed to get Banner's opinions and explanations out of the way. Still, a very good read as it covered many, many things we've all discussed..


Tom Modrak fires Lombardi

Quote:

---

While I think it's hilarious to psychoanalyse Banner from afar, I'd like to point out that mac at least has been more consistent pre-and post hire than most. I remember pretty much the WHOLE board fearing Banner having ANY say in football related matters and NOBODY wanted Lombardi in any capacity.

Well, half a year later, the same crowd is mostly pom pom cheerleading the same feared tandem of Banner-Lombardi while mac has remained consistent, though his dislike for Banner, the CEO/GM has turned into blind hate of Joe, the man, which is both rightfully ridiculed but also distracting from the argumentative consistency.

Sure, people can change their opinions, but a 180 like most on here did without even a game played, to me is as laughable as mac's excursion into psychoanalysis....let's not forget that

---

Quote:

---

Now, attack me one more time and I'll bet even more severe with you.

---

Maybe I missed a running gag somewhere, but I never thought about you when I wrote that post, just a general "feel" for what the unanimous opinion was around here half a year ago.

Your reply and Saint's are fair and honest, no problem there at all. I get that nobody has crowned Banner yet and I get that it is within the "nature" of any fan to support whoever is wearing your colours. In fact, believe it or not, I'm more or less in the same camp, though I'm a little more pessimistic now for various reasons.

I also did my research and I didn't come up with "softening" feelings. I completely agree that Banner isn't Satan, but that doesn't soften the not so good things I read and was told by die hard Eagles fans I respect. I'm not talking about homers, those guys know their stuff and I trust them way more than media war articles from both sides.

I also still can't get over Lurie saying he took notes on any recent Eagles drafts of who wanted who in their war room and then firing his lifelong friend, while backing a nobody (perceived) "puppet" GM in Roseman. I still haven't heard any plausible argument that doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory regarding to this odd ending in Philly.
If they were looking for a scapegoat, then a) Lurie as THE boss would be the last to beat around the bush and more importantly b) Roseman would be the perfect "fall" guy, as he wasn't highly regarded by fans. It doesn't take a lot of deductive reasoning and the brains of mount rushmore to get that Lurie probably thought that Banner was over-extending to where he had little clue about (personnel) and fired him. That or he took Lurie's wife to dinner for him to fire his buddy...and lets be honest: look at Banner

and Lombardi? He's a joke and is worse than the proverbial monkey throwing darts when it comes to spotting talent, I've done suffiecient "research" on that to say that with certainty. Guy is an outsmarting blowhard and the fact that Banner is bud's with the guy and talks about "thinking alike" when it comes to talent evaluation doesn't soften anything for me regarding Banner either

Look, I hope they prove me wrong when it comes to talent evaluation, but let's not act as if all concerns many on here had just some months ago on those guys have magically evaporated. I know for me they haven't, and I don't need to psychoanalyse like mac to come to my opinion of the two top dogs in this new FO. I think my points have solid grounds and can be backed up without reaching much

Quote:

---

[

Forget mac and Joe Banner for a minute...

Why is this a positive trait? I'm not saying it's a negative trait, necessarily, but...

A lot of people around here (imbeciles and gurus alike) seem to have some sort of need to have their opinion validated to the point where they end up going down with the ship.

I really don't see the merit of sticking a flag in the ground and defending the turf for the sake of doing so. More often than not, it shows more stubbornness than it does conviction.

---

Well, I thought you were a little into science too Would you say the same in a colloquium or congress? Maybe I'm a little too nerdy asking for argumentative consistency on a football message board, but to change my opinion significantly I need significantly good points to turn down my prior views. Isn't this science and argumentation in a nutshell?
It's not about stubbornness, it's about consistency for me. I hated both hires, but was very excited by the start of their FA. Why? Because they made good moves, signing good players. I did research the FO hires and hated them, then I studied the FA market and draft and I loved the Kruger/Bryant signings and pretty much didn't like the rest save for the Bess trade which was great again. That's consistency for me. So, when posters hear rumblings about the Browns being run by Banner/Lombardi and do their "research" and they come up with a thumbs down, I'd like to know what changed that all of a sudden. Is that really too much to ask for? and I want good reasons. Blind faith and "they aren't Satan" are not cutting it for me

So, in that regard mac strangely is "more consistent" than the one's he's fighting against, though I agree that it is more a case of stubborness. Otoh, I would call the other side out as weather vane-homer-ish. Structurally the argumentations are pretty close and mostly driven by arbitrariness....at least that's what I see here

Quote:

---

So, when posters hear rumblings about the Browns being run by Banner/Lombardi and do their "research" and they come up with a thumbs down, I'd like to know what changed that all of a sudden. Is that really too much to ask for? and I want good reasons.

---

Quote:

---

So, in that regard mac strangely is "more consistent" than the one's he's fighting against, though I agree that it is more a case of stubborness. Otoh, I would call the other side out as weather vane-homer-ish. Structurally the argumentations are pretty close and mostly driven by arbitrariness....at least that's what I see here

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Scroll up to the top of this thread page.

---

Oh Brother

Thanks PDR

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Scroll up to the top of this thread page.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Scroll up to the top of this thread page.

---

It's now on pg 2. See post by Brown-To-The-Bone (aka Upbeat Dog) today at 12:26pm. He's is (insultingly) referring to Holmgren...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Scroll up to the top of this thread page.

---

It's now on pg 2. See post by Brown-To-The-Bone (aka Upbeat Dog) today at 12:26pm. He's is (insultingly) referring to Holmgren...

---

Doesn't really matter who does it, it's rather childish.. don't you think?

---

Comment reserved...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, that was his name for Holmgren.

---

REALLY? Then what does PF stand for in terms of Holmgren? I'm confused.

---

Scroll up to the top of this thread page.

---

It's now on pg 2. See post by Brown-To-The-Bone (aka Upbeat Dog) today at 12:26pm. He's is (insultingly) referring to Holmgren...

---

Doesn't really matter who does it, it's rather childish.. don't you think?

---

Comment reserved...

---

Quote:

---

I don't think we should go through the interview point by point.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe I missed a running gag somewhere, but I never thought about you when I wrote that post, just a general "feel" for what the unanimous opinion was around here half a year ago.

---

Quote:

---

What about Sheard? Do you think he could be on the list?

---