Gary Reents wrote: 

I'm still trying to get people to have a realistic view of Haslam. The initial giggling love affair had him as some unstoppable winning force. He's just a guy. He has yet to show he's any better than any other owner.

And the reports about Banner while here match the reports of him at Philly. He is who he is and there's a fair to middlin chance he's a problem.

DougInParma wrote:

Gary Reents wrote: 

I'm still trying to get people to have a realistic view of Haslam. The initial giggling love affair had him as some unstoppable winning force. He's just a guy. He has yet to show he's any better than any other owner.

And the reports about Banner while here match the reports of him at Philly. He is who he is and there's a fair to middlin chance he's a problem.

Yes, yes, we know, poor poor maligned Randy.

And if Banner wanting final say kept us from getting Kelly and if the Eagles opened the bank on Kelly to make a splash and throw an F-U to Banner, then, um, that says a lot about who was wearing the adult pants in that org.

Gary Reents wrote:

As to that last paragraph, your just rationalizing. Browns wanted Kelly bad. So did the Eagles. The Eagles got him, the Browns didn't. Lurie did better than Haslam. Period. End of story.

DougInParma wrote:

Gary Reents wrote:

As to that last paragraph, your just rationalizing. Browns wanted Kelly bad. So did the Eagles. The Eagles got him, the Browns didn't. Lurie did better than Haslam. Period. End of story.

Yes, neither team has played a down, we have no inside stories yet, but 'Lurie did better than Haslam'. 

A+++, would serious football discussion again.

Did Haslam want Kelley? Yes.

Did Lurie want Kelly? Yes.

Who has Kelly? Lurie.

I feel I'm on pretty solid ground here.