Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then...

Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 3:00 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Thanks for looking it up. I couldn't find it. But that one gave an error file not found.

See if this is the one.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/19/2013 3:02 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Strange. When I paste the url  joe becomes jo e   so you get 404.  Google 'will the real Joe Banner stand up' and you'll get it. If anyone can fix the link, thanks.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 3:10 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


I think the one I put up works.

I read it. I consider that article to be a valid data point, but its the kind of article Mary Kay was relegated to, and maybe is what she is comfortable with. A human interest angle on a person. 

As one that watched and listened to the assassination of Belichick for years, you just have to know it can't all be true.

But I know this now. Joe Banner is a liar. It's just that simple and plain. He thinks nothing of lying to the fans. 

So anything he says and is quoted in an article while he's here in Cleveland cannot be believed on its face. Its sad, but he's already proven that. 

That may not be important to some, but its important to me because I use what these guys say to formulate POV. And part of that effort requires you to understand who is trustworthy and who is not. At the moment, not one person in the FO and that includes the new owner can be believed when he says something.

Last edited 1/19/2013 3:12 PM by Gary Reents

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/19/2013 3:40 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Oh, that's the fourth thing I wanted to say:  All these guys lie to us, don't they?  I've pretty much come to the state (some time ago, really) where anything any front office or coaching type tells the media/fans is filtered through my "Could be lying" filter.  Actually, it starts out more like a "probably a half-truth" filter, and if it gets to a "if he opens his mouth I know he's lying" filter, well, then he's reached the Ted Bonda/Ted Stepien/LeBron James level.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 3:46 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



daddywags wrote: Oh, that's the fourth thing I wanted to say:  All these guys lie to us, don't they?  I've pretty much come to the state (some time ago, really) where anything any front office or coaching type tells the media/fans is filtered through my "Could be lying" filter.  Actually, it starts out more like a "probably a half-truth" filter, and if it gets to a "if he opens his mouth I know he's lying" filter, well, then he's reached the Ted Bonda/Ted Stepien/LeBron James level.
There's avoiding a question. Then there's making an ambiguous statement. 

Lying is something else entirely. I don't believe Randy Lerner lied like that to the press. I think Holmgren was pretty straight up. As was Heckert. I don't recall any of them sitting in from of the press TWICE and outright lying to them.  I allow lying around the draft, that's not lying its a tactic. YMMV.

I found it really ironic that Haslam and Banner went on about its about getting a front office team that works well together (weeks ago) and then hire a man known to be a backstabbing prick in the office. That's pretty funny.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/19/2013 4:36 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


Okay, Gary, you go with that.  I think Lerner lied about the team being for sale (he was smart enough not to directly talk to the press about it, though - instead sending his underlings, like Mike Holmgren, to deny the rumors) and that Holmgren was deceptive about his major hires just remarkably all having the same agent.  I'm sure they were the "best people for the jobs" and the agent thing was just a coincidence. 

As for Haslam, Banner and Lombardi - I think they probably do work well together.  Why wouldn't three backstabbing pricks work well together?  It's the other folks who need to watch their backs.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 4:41 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



daddywags wrote: Okay, Gary, you go with that.  I think Lerner lied about the team being for sale (he was smart enough not to directly talk to the press about it, though - instead sending his underlings, like Mike Holmgren, to deny the rumors) and that Holmgren was deceptive about his major hires just remarkably all having the same agent.  I'm sure they were the "best people for the jobs" and the agent thing was just a coincidence. 

As for Haslam, Banner and Lombardi - I think they probably do work well together.  Why wouldn't three backstabbing pricks work well together?  It's the other folks who need to watch their backs.
You might have me on Lerner.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/19/2013 4:45 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary, i would like to suggest that your opinion that Banner lied is being influenced by the fact that you didn't like him first, so if there are 2 plausible scenarios you will choose the more negative one (which is why I suggested reading the article).

For example, suppose daddywags' analysis is correct. That with Banner being good friends with Lombardi, there would of course be the expectation that Lombardi would be a serious candidate.

And what if Banner didnt introduce him to Haslam for the reason Banner said- that they wanted to hire a coach first. Would the situation be best characterized that Lombardi was the choice PENDING the HC approval? Now you can argue that Lombardi would be a rubber stamp by the HC, and subject to 'convincing' by Banner. But that begs the question as to why say you will hire the HC first to begin with?

I think Lombardi's hiring was a formality. Its very possible he didnt meet Haslam until later, but he was going t be hired unless he totally alientated Haslam. In the meantime Banner interviewed one person and probably 'made calls' to others.

This isnt unlike other places where there is a favorite person to hire but there has to be a sequence of events first. In fact, I could argue that Banner was professional by not deviating from his announced plan, and bringing Lombardi in after the entire world knew he would. Dare I say that was an honorable thing to do?

You are good at analyzing things. Step outside on this one and try to look at it from a different angle. Theres not enough well-defined data points yet, in order to call the guy a liar, in my opinion.

Last edited 1/19/2013 4:46 PM by JERBB

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/19/2013 5:12 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


>>Theres not enough well-defined data points yet, in order to call the guy a liar, in my opinion.<<

Oh, no, Banner's a liar.  Make no mistake about it.  He may be more or less of a liar than the others in the same business (my bet is on "seems like more because he's not as good at it and isn't as well liked as most," but time will tell), but he's a liar.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 5:21 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



JERBB wrote:
Gary, i would like to suggest that your opinion that Banner lied is being influenced by the fact that you didn't like him first, so if there are 2 plausible scenarios you will choose the more negative one (which is why I suggested reading the article).

For example, suppose daddywags' analysis is correct. That with Banner being good friends with Lombardi, there would of course be the expectation that Lombardi would be a serious candidate.

And what if Banner didnt introduce him to Haslam for the reason Banner said- that they wanted to hire a coach first. Would the situation be best characterized that Lombardi was the choice PENDING the HC approval? Now you can argue that Lombardi would be a rubber stamp by the HC, and subject to 'convincing' by Banner. But that begs the question as to why say you will hire the HC first to begin with?

I think Lombardi's hiring was a formality. Its very possible he didnt meet Haslam until later, but he was going t be hired unless he totally alientated Haslam. In the meantime Banner interviewed one person and probably 'made calls' to others.

This isnt unlike other places where there is a favorite person to hire but there has to be a sequence of events first. In fact, I could argue that Banner was professional by not deviating from his announced plan, and bringing Lombardi in after the entire world knew he would. Dare I say that was an honorable thing to do?

You are good at analyzing things. Step outside on this one and try to look at it from a different angle. Theres not enough well-defined data points yet, in order to call the guy a liar, in my opinion.
At some point you have to accept the truth of things. Lombardi has been mentioned as in the plans for weeks and weeks. It would not go away

Over the years I've learned that one report is a rumor and means nothing. When you get two reports, you start to pay attention. You make sure the second report isn't a report of the first report. If you get three reports...its almost always true. 

We passed that point of the third report many weeks ago.  We were up past 5. And yet, I figured that with all the negative reaction to the reports Haslam might stop it. Then we heard that if he does come it wouldn't be a position of great significance. And that was the clincher there. I knew he was coming.

I figured they would hire a well respected GM and the mid season or so, maybe during training camp, slip him in as some kind of assistant to Banner or something. But no. Here he is and he has a position of significance.  The reports assuring everyone he wasn't coming or if he did it wouldn't be an important post were coming from Banner and Lombardi. That's obvious now.

Now, using my method...here he is like I expected/feared/dreaded. I would say my "preferences" played no part in the FACT that the reports ended up being accurate. So I don't believe my desires influenced me. 

So, I have to say that maybe you and a few others here are biased, hoping that it really can't be that bad...can it? I've watched some in here just about twist themselves into a mental pretzel trying to maintain that Haslam is just sooo good and he knows this and really knows that...etc.  Its getting ridiculous now.  

I will let Banner and Lombardi prove their competence. Back when Belichick was here he got slammed for picking terrible draft picks. Now I hear it was Lombardi making all those picks. I doubt that. I think It was Belichick. So, I'm keeping an open mind on his ability to evaluate talent. But his backstabbing and **** stirring are a matter of record and he began here by lying.

 Nasty people can be quite good at what they do. But Banner and Lombardi have already proven they are untrustworthy and that lends credence to all of the negative reports about both men. Liars love babies, too. Liars have mommies who love them and brothers, too. They even have friends. So personal interest stories with heartwarming tales of babies, etc, don't really touch on what I'm worried about.

What I'm getting from some is that I should quit raining on their parade and assume positive things about whatever these guys do. I don't do that. My POV is what I think is going on based on information I see.

So far, I like the coaching staffs. Haslam and Banner whiffed on their main targets, but if you gotta get a rookie coach and take your chances, Chud has some good things in his favor. I like Horton. I like Turner. 

But the right answer to the question about Brandon Weeden (to Lombardi) is 'That's Coach Chudinski's call." But that wasn't the answer we got. So right away the story of Chud having roster control should be considered suspect.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/19/2013 7:30 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote:
.  

Back when Belichick was here he got slammed for picking terrible draft picks. Now I hear it was Lombardi making all those picks. I doubt that. I think It was Belichick.




Oh yeah, you could tell by the Everett pick. Who else would take a center at the top of the draft for a team screaming for playmakers? (Oh wait, Mangini carried the tradition forward). Strength up the middle, rah!
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/20/2013 1:52 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote:
 
At some point you have to accept the truth of things. Lombardi has been mentioned as in the plans for weeks and weeks. It would not go away

And Banner said this in the press conference. It was Haslam that said he first talked seriously to Lombardi 7-10 days prior.

Over the years I've learned that one report is a rumor and means nothing. When you get two reports, you start to pay attention. You make sure the second report isn't a report of the first report. If you get three reports...its almost always true. 

To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

We passed that point of the third report many weeks ago.  We were up past 5. And yet, I figured that with all the negative reaction to the reports Haslam might stop it. Then we heard that if he does come it wouldn't be a position of great significance. And that was the clincher there. I knew he was coming.

So you are saying we heard 'rumors' and 'reports' from who? Banner? No....it was from people trying to guess & interpret the situation (putting their own spin on it). How does this make Banner a liar?

I figured they would hire a well respected GM and the mid season or so, maybe during training camp, slip him in as some kind of assistant to Banner or something. But no. Here he is and he has a position of significance.  The reports assuring everyone he wasn't coming or if he did it wouldn't be an important post were coming from Banner and Lombardi. That's obvious now.

Gary- It sounds like your sources lied, not Banner. Or, to be more polite- were wrong.  I think this is the real issue- you were surprised and extremely disappointed. So you are upset. And you're taking it out on Banner 2 times- one for hiring such a schmuck and, two, for not doing what your sources said he would do (therefore he is a liar).

Now, using my method...here he is like I expected/feared/dreaded. I would say my "preferences" played no part in the FACT that the reports ended up being accurate. So I don't believe my desires influenced me. 

So, I have to say that maybe you and a few others here are biased, hoping that it really can't be that bad...can it? I've watched some in here just about twist themselves into a mental pretzel trying to maintain that Haslam is just sooo good and he knows this and really knows that...etc.  Its getting ridiculous now.  

No, I am afraid I agree with you. I am very upset with them hiring Lombardi. I am upset with Banner because I question his ability to properly evaluate personnel. I am also very upset with him that he didn't give full weight to the unpopularity of this hire. Does he realize that there is now no free pass? Couldn't he have found someone just as good and who also would be accepted by fans? BUT...these actions don't make him a liar in my eyes.

I will let Banner and Lombardi prove their competence. Back when Belichick was here he got slammed for picking terrible draft picks. Now I hear it was Lombardi making all those picks. I doubt that. I think It was Belichick. So, I'm keeping an open mind on his ability to evaluate talent. But his backstabbing and **** stirring are a matter of record and he began here by lying.

I agree-he was a real a$$hole before. This is where maybe I am soft, because when I re-watched his press conference, saying how he made mistakes, and that he wouldnt hire himself, as he was back then, I actually appreciated how difficult it was for him to sit in that room, knowing how hated he is, and basically apologize. Think about it and how tough that must be. I know, maybe I'm being bamboozled on this point but I'm going to go with it until I see otherwise. Like you said, I will judge his drafting and have a wait-and-see attitude about that and also his personality.

 Nasty people can be quite good at what they do. But Banner and Lombardi have already proven they are untrustworthy and that lends credence to all of the negative reports about both men. Liars love babies, too. Liars have mommies who love them and brothers, too. They even have friends. So personal interest stories with heartwarming tales of babies, etc, don't really touch on what I'm worried about.

Yea, well people love Mercedes because they are status. And people love Mercedes because they think they are a beautiful car with quality. You really don't know about a person until you know them better. Reminds me of the Presidential debates. Who won it depends on whether you are red or blue, buying or selling. I do, however, question your using the term 'proven they are untrustworthy' for reasons stated above, because the only thing proven is that Banner and Haslam didnt do what you thought, and hoped, they would do.

What I'm getting from some is that I should quit raining on their parade and assume positive things about whatever these guys do. I don't do that. My POV is what I think is going on based on information I see.

So far, I like the coaching staffs. Haslam and Banner whiffed on their main targets, but if you gotta get a rookie coach and take your chances, Chud has some good things in his favor. I like Horton. I like Turner. 

But the right answer to the question about Brandon Weeden (to Lombardi) is 'That's Coach Chudinski's call." But that wasn't the answer we got. So right away the story of Chud having roster control should be considered suspect.

That bothered me also. In fact, one of the few (I think only) follow-up and 'challenging' questions asked by the reporters was roster selection. First they asked Lombardi and then Joe ("well, if its 2 for and 2 against then that tells us we should not consider it"). Yea, I cringed when I heard that- I pictured our scouts selling up a player, and Lombardi shooting it down. Banner would be more influenced by Lombardi so makes it 2-2. Next!  Oh my God....

I'm also concerned that if the bottom falls out, that Chud will be the fall guy. I have warmed up to him and his associates and it would be a shame if we let another talented coach leave, when the fault lies somewhere else.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 4:35 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 


J:
To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

G:
I don't know that you should say anything. You suggested I'm biased because of this, that, or the other thing. I'm explaining to you why I'm where I'm at. 

There is a whole second echelon of information flowing in the NFL. It emanates from agents, players, and actual NFL team executives and workers that speak to reporters off the record. You have the official statements and then you have the unofficial statements. Relying on the official statements is fine as long as you have a generally honest person and it doesn't hurt the team or the person to be honest.

I'll give you an example. When Phil was being considered for the job with the Browns. The official information was aglow. The unofficial had several reports that he wasn't ready. Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to the unofficial reports and I described to you when I give it real weight. The cliche covering this is "Where there's smoke..."

The constant and unrelenting chatter about Lombardi over the last months indicts all three, Haslam, Banner and Lombardi. The only way that isn't true is for Haslam to been completely duped as he went along.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/20/2013 5:14 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote: J:
To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

G:
I don't know that you should say anything. You suggested I'm biased because of this, that, or the other thing. I'm explaining to you why I'm where I'm at. 

There is a whole second echelon of information flowing in the NFL. It emanates from agents, players, and actual NFL team executives and workers that speak to reporters off the record. You have the official statements and then you have the unofficial statements. Relying on the official statements is fine as long as you have a generally honest person and it doesn't hurt the team or the person to be honest.

I'll give you an example. When Phil was being considered for the job with the Browns. The official information was aglow. The unofficial had several reports that he wasn't ready. Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to the unofficial reports and I described to you when I give it real weight. The cliche covering this is "Where there's smoke..."

The constant and unrelenting chatter about Lombardi over the last months indicts all three, Haslam, Banner and Lombardi. The only way that isn't true is for Haslam to been completely duped as he went along.
Where is this '2nd echelon' of info? I am not a subscriber-you are talking about Lane?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:33 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



JERBB wrote:
Gary Reents wrote: J:
To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

G:
I don't know that you should say anything. You suggested I'm biased because of this, that, or the other thing. I'm explaining to you why I'm where I'm at. 

There is a whole second echelon of information flowing in the NFL. It emanates from agents, players, and actual NFL team executives and workers that speak to reporters off the record. You have the official statements and then you have the unofficial statements. Relying on the official statements is fine as long as you have a generally honest person and it doesn't hurt the team or the person to be honest.

I'll give you an example. When Phil was being considered for the job with the Browns. The official information was aglow. The unofficial had several reports that he wasn't ready. Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to the unofficial reports and I described to you when I give it real weight. The cliche covering this is "Where there's smoke..."

The constant and unrelenting chatter about Lombardi over the last months indicts all three, Haslam, Banner and Lombardi. The only way that isn't true is for Haslam to been completely duped as he went along.
Where is this '2nd echelon' of info? I am not a subscriber-you are talking about Lane?
Not only Lane, although Lane is a very good one. The site is lucky to have him. But, it comes from everywhere in the media covering the NFL. Each reporter hears things, writes things from unnamed sources. Over time you can see which usually have good sources and which don't and you weight accordingly.

The big splash news that suddenly emerges is often from the national media like Mortensen because they can be useful to agents and players. In between, the local reporters usually know better what's happening because they're focused more on the team all the time. The national media split their attention on all teams.

Each player has an agent. They talk. So each agent has a pretty good feel about the team lockerrooms. What's happening. Etc. Think about it. And sometimes the players will talk directly to reporters as long as its off the record. 

Think about how we found out about Grantham trying to take Romeo's job. It was out there from 2nd echelon sources and finally had to be addressed by the team when it became common knowledge. 

That's how we found out Lombardi and Belichick put together a video to show Art how much Bernie had diminished to get him benched and released. Not the kind of thing the team will talk about until asked and its asked after it leaks out. 

All of the reporters have get information from these 2nd echelon sources. You just have to pay attention to them and avoid dismissing them because you don't like the information.

Last edited 1/20/2013 6:34 AM by Gary Reents

Reply | Quote
  • Lumpy
  • Cotton Dog
  • 9635 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 11:40 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote:
JERBB wrote:
Gary Reents wrote: J:
To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

G:
I don't know that you should say anything. You suggested I'm biased because of this, that, or the other thing. I'm explaining to you why I'm where I'm at. 

There is a whole second echelon of information flowing in the NFL. It emanates from agents, players, and actual NFL team executives and workers that speak to reporters off the record. You have the official statements and then you have the unofficial statements. Relying on the official statements is fine as long as you have a generally honest person and it doesn't hurt the team or the person to be honest.

I'll give you an example. When Phil was being considered for the job with the Browns. The official information was aglow. The unofficial had several reports that he wasn't ready. Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to the unofficial reports and I described to you when I give it real weight. The cliche covering this is "Where there's smoke..."

The constant and unrelenting chatter about Lombardi over the last months indicts all three, Haslam, Banner and Lombardi. The only way that isn't true is for Haslam to been completely duped as he went along.
Where is this '2nd echelon' of info? I am not a subscriber-you are talking about Lane?
Not only Lane, although Lane is a very good one. The site is lucky to have him. But, it comes from everywhere in the media covering the NFL. Each reporter hears things, writes things from unnamed sources. Over time you can see which usually have good sources and which don't and you weight accordingly.

The big splash news that suddenly emerges is often from the national media like Mortensen because they can be useful to agents and players. In between, the local reporters usually know better what's happening because they're focused more on the team all the time. The national media split their attention on all teams.

Each player has an agent. They talk. So each agent has a pretty good feel about the team lockerrooms. What's happening. Etc. Think about it. And sometimes the players will talk directly to reporters as long as its off the record. 

Think about how we found out about Grantham trying to take Romeo's job. It was out there from 2nd echelon sources and finally had to be addressed by the team when it became common knowledge. 

That's how we found out Lombardi and Belichick put together a video to show Art how much Bernie had diminished to get him benched and released. Not the kind of thing the team will talk about until asked and its asked after it leaks out. 

All of the reporters have get information from these 2nd echelon sources. You just have to pay attention to them and avoid dismissing them because you don't like the information.

Well done Gary...well done.
Jebb and others have legitimate questions and you answered those about as well as anyone could without being derogatory.

Keep the forum going!

Good discussions...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/20/2013 1:03 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote:

All of the reporters have get information from these 2nd echelon sources. You just have to pay attention to them and avoid dismissing them because you don't like the information.
No, its not dismissing the information. Its more like I haven't seen any that is substantial enough for me that I can label him a liar. I would want facts and not opinion before I come to that conclusion. 

I have heard a lot of accusations and comments about numerous sources but nothing concrete as to what he lied about.  As I mentioned before, I don't think he lied about his considering Lombardi, and the timing of it. 

Is there something you can point to in regards to his public statements which proves it?

EDIT- As an afterthought I wanted to mention this: Banner is supposed to be an excellent negotiator. And what does he negotiate? The most contentious item possible- salary. His job is to reduce the player's image of himself so that he could put, presumably, a lower (he would call it realistic) number to his worth. That is going to crush egos and cause for hard feelings. I would not be surprised if the player and his agent gets angry and upset.

Note I am not defending Banner- he may very well be a liar. I'm just trying to put an angle on the information from sources that are out there.

Last edited 1/20/2013 1:26 PM by JERBB

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 1:25 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



JERBB wrote:
Gary Reents wrote:

All of the reporters have get information from these 2nd echelon sources. You just have to pay attention to them and avoid dismissing them because you don't like the information.
No, its not dismissing the information. Its more like I haven't seen any that is substantial enough for me that I can label him a liar. I would want facts and not opinion before I come to that conclusion. 

I have heard a lot of accusations and comments about numerous sources but nothing concrete as to what he lied about.  As I mentioned before, I don't think he lied about his considering Lombardi, and the timing of it. 

Is there something you can point to in regards to his public statements which proves it?
The post was in general and not specifically pointed at you. Too many read a rumor and if they don't like it they dismiss it.

To the rest of your post: That's what I'm trying to tell you. A constant drumbeat of 2nd echelon information usually ends up being true. The background chatter had Lombardi coming for a long time now and now he's here. It predates the story told by Haslam and Banner.

At one point he was tied to specific coaches only. Lombardi would come if Saban is hired. Lombardi only comes if.... In the end, Lombardi just came. Like the reports said he was.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/21/2013 9:10 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Gary Reents wrote:
JERBB wrote:
Gary Reents wrote: J:
To be honest I don't know how to respond to the above- it's too ethereal of a statement. What am I supposed to say? You heard it 2 times it's false? But 3 times its true? Rumors can be true or rumors can be false. There's also the saying that if you say something enough times it will be believed. At what point are you going to ask what are the facts? You know the story about how 2 people will interpret a story differently. Forget the rumors- What specifically has Banner lied about?

G:
I don't know that you should say anything. You suggested I'm biased because of this, that, or the other thing. I'm explaining to you why I'm where I'm at. 

There is a whole second echelon of information flowing in the NFL. It emanates from agents, players, and actual NFL team executives and workers that speak to reporters off the record. You have the official statements and then you have the unofficial statements. Relying on the official statements is fine as long as you have a generally honest person and it doesn't hurt the team or the person to be honest.

I'll give you an example. When Phil was being considered for the job with the Browns. The official information was aglow. The unofficial had several reports that he wasn't ready. Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to the unofficial reports and I described to you when I give it real weight. The cliche covering this is "Where there's smoke..."

The constant and unrelenting chatter about Lombardi over the last months indicts all three, Haslam, Banner and Lombardi. The only way that isn't true is for Haslam to been completely duped as he went along.
Where is this '2nd echelon' of info? I am not a subscriber-you are talking about Lane?
Not only Lane, although Lane is a very good one. The site is lucky to have him. But, it comes from everywhere in the media covering the NFL. Each reporter hears things, writes things from unnamed sources. Over time you can see which usually have good sources and which don't and you weight accordingly.

The big splash news that suddenly emerges is often from the national media like Mortensen because they can be useful to agents and players. In between, the local reporters usually know better what's happening because they're focused more on the team all the time. The national media split their attention on all teams.

Each player has an agent. They talk. So each agent has a pretty good feel about the team lockerrooms. What's happening. Etc. Think about it. And sometimes the players will talk directly to reporters as long as its off the record. 

Think about how we found out about Grantham trying to take Romeo's job. It was out there from 2nd echelon sources and finally had to be addressed by the team when it became common knowledge. 

That's how we found out Lombardi and Belichick put together a video to show Art how much Bernie had diminished to get him benched and released. Not the kind of thing the team will talk about until asked and its asked after it leaks out. 

All of the reporters have get information from these 2nd echelon sources. You just have to pay attention to them and avoid dismissing them because you don't like the information.

summary:
1) relationships=very important. Ugh, if Banner/Haslam/Lombardi are not well-liked, then NO FA! (But how is that possible if we have to hit 90 percent salary spendage for '13)?

2) Player Agents are more influential than I thought. I know Gary is connected.

3) I remember the Grantham thing--I wonder how much deeper your sources are even compared with Lane.

Reply | Quote