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...

  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2274 posts this site

Posted: 1/24/2013 8:12 PM

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


---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

H
Randy took on what was asked of him reluctantly for his dad and family.  He was never fully vested or comfortable with it.  He failed and then bailed as soon as his inheritance agreement allowed for it.  Haslam doesn't need the NFL.  He WANTS it badly.  His goal from any source is full commitment and involvement in all he does.  Even if he fails his motive and personal involvement Trumps Randy period.

Haslam has evidence of building with success.  What has Randy built verses inheritated?  I can pointo to his failures, can you point to his successes? 

G:
My task is to take what you just wrote and show you where your hope interfered with your cognitive processes. You concocted a profile of a man you have never met and never observed. You don't even know someone that knows someone who knows Haslam but you have this psychological profile of him. Of course, you know none of the things you stated about Haslam's personality. He's a mystery to you and every other Browns fan because none of us has had an opportunity to observe him.

So comparing him to anyone is about the same as looking at clouds and discussing what they look like. That one's a horse! Ooooh. Look, that one is an ice cream cone. Is not! Is too!

Haslam's approach is so similar to Randy's its actually kind of scary. Perhaps Haslam will get it right where Randy did not, but that doesn't speak to "determination." It speaks possibly to capability, and/or possibly which is luckier.

Now, if that seems harsh or unfair, you're still in the midst of your Haslam man crush, because its completely correct.

MES: Funny, you've done the exact same thing from the outset of this thread. You've deduced from your trusted sources, filled in the blanks yourself, and have created complete characterizations of people you've never met or never observed outside the media camera. As a result, you've hypothesized,

"The reason I'm focused on the FO right now is because a consistently winning franchise has to be consistent and stable. I think the FO is the most important part of achieving such an organization. A FO headed by liars and people who disrespect the fans and media can use consistent and stable business practices, its just not as likely...imo. Such people won't stop with lying to us and the media, they'll lie and disrespect other people in the NFL and that ultimately will work against them."

And this nugget, " My read of people like Banner and Lombardi is they don't respect other people's opinions much unless it coincides with theirs. So anyone on the roster that they had doubts about before they were acquired is on shaky ground"

(by the way, that is not exclusive to these 2 apparent a-holes, it's happened several time here, and in other places where teams perennially lose, but that's besides the point).

That sounds an awful like you've spotted a cloud, maybe one that looks like a pot calling the kettle black.

Plus, you've bought into the whole Banner/ Little Napolean characterization. Tell me, do you know this to be true? Have you met Joe Banner? If your sources are outside the media, I'd like to know that.


H
He hasn't even experienced his first draft yet and yer asking this or finish building his FO?  Maybe you should have been this hard on Randy?

G:
Oh I didn't have to be. I usually try to counter widespread and stupid takes. In Randy's case those were painting him as a stupid, selfish, cheap, momma's boy. I just argued facts and pointed out that some conclusions made by others had no evidence to back them up. 

And I'm doing the same thing now to you and other who are idolizing someone for stuff he hasn't done yet.

Which brings us back to the fan experience. I'm not giving him credit for doing it UNTIL HE DOES IT. Try it sometime. Wait for him to do something before you give him credit for it.

MES: I agree credit shouldn't be given until its done. I would add that blame should not be predicted prematurely. You seem to live up to half of this. In addition, when it comes to Randy Bonaparte you seem to downplay the complete cluster of the Lerner era or quickly spread the blame that is due on other people - Holmgren, Mangini, Savage, etc...

You insinuate that Randy did what he could do - talked to people for example, but just couldn't get it right for some reason.

Yet, the man literally quit as soon as he could, and it's hard to see he lacked determination? It was 11 years. That's it. And who knows how soon he would've sold had he been allowed. Yet, Randy was determined.

H
No Randy hired one failure after another.  Falling in love and buying into whatever was whispered into his ear because of being inept himself.  Giving to much power time after time only having himself 'try'' to hold them accountable.  Once it blew up beyond repair he found the time in his busy billionaire life to do it all over again and again.   

G:
I have no problem with that description. Maybe a little at the margins, but he failed. No getting around that.

And Haslam hasn't succeed yet, either. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. 

MES: True. Time will tell about Haslam's ownership. It's clear some in the media, and some around these parts have sharpened their spears after 100 days. If only Randy Bonaparte was held to the same standard...ever. Well Grossi did and lost his job.

H
How do you know what Al wanted in regard to ticket prices or stadium naming rights?  Now, most sons do love their fathers, even Haslam which also has nothing to do with this discussion.  IF anything, shame on Randy for taking his inheritance and letting it become the joke of the NFL.  Randy has insured a legacy for himself and his beloved father alright and not a good one.  Once of, inept owners taking a proud and respected franchise to its knees regardless of how hard the fans fought to keep it.  Oh, and what might happening with additional revenues?  

G:
Actually, it was Art that took a proud franchise to its knees. The Lerners were just unable to bring it back. 

MES: Neglect is hurtful too. The soccer team was Randy's favorite child, the Browns were step sisters.

H:
Ya think Randy didn't make up for not taking up prices when selling it for the money he charged Haslam?  You don't think the price paid by Haslam  demanded more revenue from where ever he could find it?  An area common in the NFL?  Would you prefer the fans pay it?  With the petty jab given here, take comfort that with as low as the bar was set by Randy it won't be hard for Haslam to improves things.

G:
You seem to be upset. Are you upset? Just because I don't fall down on my knees and worship at the feet of Haslam? I'm just stating facts.

What Haslam has done so far is the exact same method that Randy used. He talked to the same owners. He got a President at the suggestion of the NFL. He hired his coach first then hired his GM. Same exact steps that Randy took Exact same steps in the exact same order.

Only thing different, really is Randy got the coach he wanted and Haslam missed out on Kelly and Saban...and Gruden wouldn't consider it as long as Banner was here.

But, Haslam hired a coordinator and promoted him to HC just like Randy did, although Romeo was more highly regarded than Chud. 

MES:

What?!?!? Randy took over in 2002, Butch Davis 2nd year. He kept Policy until April 2004, extended Davis in 2004 after a 5-11 season and 24-27 overall after 3 seasons, and then brought in John Collins whom had never worked for a real NFL team as a FO president.

This is the exact opposite of Haslam. For it to be the same, Holmgren would stay on for a year and a half, Shurmur would be extended for an additional 2 years to his currently existing contract after next season, and then Haslam would have to hire an NFL business exec with no experience working with an NFL team.

I'm not sure my understanding of same is equal to yours.

H
How do you really know what the collective of the fans want?  My guess is they want to win more than anything now first and formost. I think Randy has taken our Tradition and turned it into a punch line for jokes.  Most want to win and becoming fresh in some areas is ok as long as winning is a part of it.  Ya might want to give Haslam more than a fraction of what ya gave Randy in time and leeway.  I mean months verses 10 plus years seems just a little unbalanced.  Just a thought.

G:
I don't pretend to speak for the fans. I'm just relating the reaction I've always seen when the idea was brought up before. I think Aardvark expressed it quite well.  I think many are determined to insist that Haslam will be a winner regardless of what he does or says. Actually, I know that's true because Haslam has already done more to alienate the fan base than Randy did in 10 years. Some notice and don't like it, some fit it to their delusion and decide its a brilliant move as evidenced by the fact Haslam did it.

To some whatever Haslam does is great because that's all Haslam would do. Kind of a sad to see, especially in older fans. Such desperation


MES: It works both ways. Some are determined to insist that Haslam, Banner, and Lombardi are ready to screw the pooch because they found a loophole in the system for talking to people in the league while they are currently employed by other teams, and thus did not tell the truth. Or in your words, "As far as I can see things are pretty set now. Now we just get to see whether they begin deconstructing the roster. Personally, I think they will. My read of people like Banner and Lombardi is they don't respect other people's opinions much unless it coincides with theirs. So anyone on the roster that they had doubts about before they were acquired is on shaky ground."

You can keep handing me a bag of s*** and tell me they're roses, but I'm not going to get the vase ready because you say so. I think all that's pretty set is your take is as biased and agenda driven as the next.
---------------------------------------------

Last edited 1/24/2013 8:26 PM by mes78

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 8:25 PM

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


No. I have not constructed cartoons of people.

Banner has a history. I use what has been reported of him. He has been called a "Little Napolean" and he is known to meddle.  Those are reports from several sources.

Lombardi's history is well known. He has to prove he's not what he's done now. 

And the sources you dismiss has been reporting Lombardi was in the picture for months now and...look, here he is.

Haslam is a complete unknown to me. Other than he made big bucks on fancy truck stops I know few facts about him. Which is why I'm laughing at people who tell me he's this that and t he other thing because they know as little as I do.

What I know is this man has bought this team, renamed the stadium for big money, lied to the media for weeks, and so did Banner, and decided to change the uniforms.

Now you and other can tell me you don't care about any of that, you just care about winning. Fine. If that's how you view it that's certainly your right to do that. 

But don't be trying to sell that this is what a winner does or a true businessman or any other crap that's been slung around here.

So far, as far as anyone can tell,Haslam isn't anything special.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/24/2013 8:37 PM

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



Gary Reents wrote: No. I have not constructed cartoons of people.

Banner has a history. I use what has been reported of him. He has been called a "Little Napolean" and he is known to meddle.  Those are reports from several sources.

Nope, no cartoons here. So what if Banner aided Lurie in building Philadelphia into a perennial NFC East powerhouse. Sources don't have an agenda, they're not influenced by Jeff Lurie or Howie Roseman or Andy Reid. No, sir, they only speak God's Honest Truth.

Up next, Tom and Jerry in 'George Kokinis, GM'.

Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2274 posts this site

Posted: 1/24/2013 9:15 PM

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




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:

No. I have not constructed cartoons of people.

Banner has a history. I use what has been reported of him. He has been called a "Little Napolean" and he is known to meddle.  Those are reports from several sources.

Lombardi's history is well known. He has to prove he's not what he's done now. 

And the sources you dismiss has been reporting Lombardi was in the picture for months now and...look, here he is.

Haslam is a complete unknown to me. Other than he made big bucks on fancy truck stops I know few facts about him. Which is why I'm laughing at people who tell me he's this that and t he other thing because they know as little as I do.

What I know is this man has bought this team, renamed the stadium for big money, lied to the media for weeks, and so did Banner, and decided to change the uniforms.

Now you and other can tell me you don't care about any of that, you just care about winning. Fine. If that's how you view it that's certainly your right to do that. 

But don't be trying to sell that this is what a winner does or a true businessman or any other crap that's been slung around here.

So far, as far as anyone can tell,Haslam isn't anything special.

---------------------------------------------
G: Page 1- "The more I think about this the more untrustworthy Haslam becomes. I never did trust Banner once I heard the reports about him, but now I feel Haslam is pretty smarmy. Afterall, he sat there and listened to Banner say that to the assembled Cleveland media and the watching and listening fans."

G: Page 5 - "Haslam is a complete unknown to me. Other than he made big bucks on fancy truck stops I know few facts about him. Which is why I'm laughing at people who tell me he's this that and t he other thing because they know as little as I do."

MES: I'm starting to laugh, now. Page 1 you start thinking, and tell me he's untrustworthy. Based on reports of lying of course, but without trying to figure out the advantages of doing this, if it's even true. Then, page 5 you know as little as I know about the man.

If A is true (Gary doesnt know dick about Haslam), then B is also true (Gary's assumptions are biased and agenda driven).

As for Banner, the Little Napolean cartoon is interesting. If he played a strong role in the building of the Eagles, then doesn't it seem to make sense for him to wield power in his next job? Also, if he was a meddling, greedy bastard then why the hard feelings by all those still in PHI? In my experience the complete incompetents get all the back slaps and well wishes when they get promoted outside the company. Nobody is mad to see those types leave. See RAC. However, someone who is competent, but chooses to leave - why that person is treated like a high school girl who dumps her avg. joe boyfriend for the star QB, she's called a slut, dirty whore who really isn't all that hot. So, portions of the media has concerns, but it's not uniform. And the facts show that Banner has hired Chud, Turner, Horton, and Lombardi. Time will tell if this so called Lil Napoleon fits the cartoon.

Now a cartoon that needs acceptance is Randy Bonaparte. The only major difference is that the real Napoleon only got 15 million in his deal, while Randy got a billion. Napoleon was a better general, but Randy was a better negotiator.
Reply | Quote