Nasdaq wrote:

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

0tter wrote:

Nasdaq wrote: When runs his "aggressive" scheme & we start getting toasted for long easy TDs and 21 point losses he's gonna be the most hated man in town. ESP when Lombardi drafts some dooshnozz bustas instead of a CB.

Besides why does a 50 year old man rock a lil bow wow wig?

He'd say Lil Bow Wow rocks his braids not the other way around. 

I haven't watched many Zona games so I don't know how much that talk translates to reality but it does seem like almost every NFL defense is getting torched on a regular basis.  So why not get torched being aggressive rather than get torched being passive?  Seriously it's gotta be a little more fun to watch.  Particularly in the first quarter and hopefully in the last.

As for Lombardi's picks how much of an influence was he in the Turner pick in '91?  He wasn't promoted to director of college and pro until '92 when he had full responsibility.  Which was a horrendous draft.  They didn't pick a DB in '93 and then grabbed Langham in the first round in '94.   

When was it we stopped blaming Belichick for all those picks? What happened to the stories of Belichick throwing things in rage and acting out of panic during the draft?

---------------------------------------------
All roads lead back to ur agenda like Rome, eh Garius?

Salient point is when u get a mix of an under talented D without a pass rush talent or a crappy set of DBs your D may as well be Detroit on Halloween night if you play "aggressive".

Can't wait to read the wailing and gnashing after TR gets 6 carries / game cause we're down 14 in qtr 1.

Hear me now & believe me later.

No. I think Belichick made those calls, not Lombardi.

What Lombardi did when he was here last time was undercut Accorsi and assist in getting him out of Cleveland. That led to Belichick having more say in the drafts than was good for him and the Browns.

My criticism of Lombardi has not been about his picks, its been about his character. His toxic character that negatively affected this organization through subterfuge and dishonesty. 

Belichick made those picks. Lombardi set the table, but Belichick dished.

Gary Reents wrote:

No. I think Belichick made those calls, not Lombardi.

What Lombardi did when he was here last time was undercut Accorsi and assist in getting him out of Cleveland. That led to Belichick having more say in the drafts than was good for him and the Browns.

My criticism of Lombardi has not been about his picks, its been about his character. His toxic character that negatively affected this organization through subterfuge and dishonesty. 

Belichick made those picks. Lombardi set the table, but Belichick dished.

That's fair and it's the most valid reason to dislike Lombardi.  The reason underplayed the most in the national media and overplayed here in Cleveland.  It's 20 years ago.  Over time peeps do tend to recognize when their attitude and disposition as a young gun tended to cost them more than it helped them.   Folks who have known Lombardi for the past 10 years instead of the previous tend speak of him like he's a completely different person.

Proof's in the pudding.

It is worth noting that his questionable methods were used in a power struggle in Cleveland.  While there are questions about where the power is really at in this organization to people looking in from the outside I do not believe there is any doubt inside about where the power lies.  So I'm not sure that a discussion of his tactics and general slimeyness matter much in today's context.

When you get past Lombardi's track record in the midst of those stupid FO internal games the teams he's represented have done pretty well even if it hasn't been through draft.  IMHO his record at evaluating pro-players over college players is better than anyone the Browns have had on staff since the return.

Are you troubled by the dishonesty and subterfuge adversely affecting this organization occasioned by randy counting his money and the days until he  could sell?  Perhaps lying through a screen mollifies.  

0tter wrote:

Gary Reents wrote:

No. I think Belichick made those calls, not Lombardi.

What Lombardi did when he was here last time was undercut Accorsi and assist in getting him out of Cleveland. That led to Belichick having more say in the drafts than was good for him and the Browns.

My criticism of Lombardi has not been about his picks, its been about his character. His toxic character that negatively affected this organization through subterfuge and dishonesty. 

Belichick made those picks. Lombardi set the table, but Belichick dished.

That's fair and it's the most valid reason to dislike Lombardi.  The reason underplayed the most in the national media and overplayed here in Cleveland.  It's 20 years ago.  Over time peeps do tend to recognize when their attitude and disposition as a young gun tended to cost them more than it helped them.   Folks who have known Lombardi for the past 10 years instead of the previous tend speak of him like he's a completely different person.

Proof's in the pudding.

It is worth noting that his questionable methods were used in a power struggle in Cleveland.  While there are questions about where the power is really at in this organization to people looking in from the outside I do not believe there is any doubt inside about where the power lies.  So I'm not sure that a discussion of his tactics and general slimeyness matter much in today's context.

When you get past Lombardi's track record in the midst of those stupid FO internal games the teams he's represented have done pretty well even if it hasn't been through draft.  IMHO his record at evaluating pro-players over college players is better than anyone the Browns have had on staff since the return.

Chud has close friends.  He should keep Lombardi closer.

0tter wrote:

Gary Reents wrote:

No. I think Belichick made those calls, not Lombardi.

What Lombardi did when he was here last time was undercut Accorsi and assist in getting him out of Cleveland. That led to Belichick having more say in the drafts than was good for him and the Browns.

My criticism of Lombardi has not been about his picks, its been about his character. His toxic character that negatively affected this organization through subterfuge and dishonesty. 

Belichick made those picks. Lombardi set the table, but Belichick dished.

That's fair and it's the most valid reason to dislike Lombardi.  The reason underplayed the most in the national media and overplayed here in Cleveland.  It's 20 years ago.  Over time peeps do tend to recognize when their attitude and disposition as a young gun tended to cost them more than it helped them.   Folks who have known Lombardi for the past 10 years instead of the previous tend speak of him like he's a completely different person.

Proof's in the pudding.

It is worth noting that his questionable methods were used in a power struggle in Cleveland.  While there are questions about where the power is really at in this organization to people looking in from the outside I do not believe there is any doubt inside about where the power lies.  So I'm not sure that a discussion of his tactics and general slimeyness matter much in today's context.

When you get past Lombardi's track record in the midst of those stupid FO internal games the teams he's represented have done pretty well even if it hasn't been through draft.  IMHO his record at evaluating pro-players over college players is better than anyone the Browns have had on staff since the return.

Participating in a charade with Banner that pretended he wasn't coming to Cleveland for the last 4 months while jacking with people who thought they were really interviewing for a position shouldn't give anyone confidence that Lombardi has changed.

And an organization that lets a man like Jauron find out in the press that he's been fired isn't one I would consider honorable or particularly ethical. There are right ways to do things and wrong ways to do thing. An organization that begins by lying to the fans over things that require no lies and treats people well only if they are useful is just the type of environment Lombardi wallowed about in while here in the 90s. I shouldn't say wallow, I should say helped make the mud.

Its true that pricks can win...a lot.  We can hope for that.

redright wrote: Are you troubled by the dishonesty and subterfuge adversely affecting this organization occasioned by randy counting his money and the days until he  could sell?  Perhaps lying through a screen mollifies.  

If I thought that was true I would be troubled.

Gary Reents wrote:

redright wrote: Are you troubled by the dishonesty and subterfuge adversely affecting this organization occasioned by randy counting his money and the days until he  could sell?  Perhaps lying through a screen mollifies.  

If I thought that was true I would be troubled.

Then it is really good you don't think!