Mainly the fact that I don't think he is a good evaluator of talent.. has played a hand in screwing up many drafts (not just for the Browns). I feel like he is very smug and thinks that he is right about everything no matter what it is. Also, the fact that he was never there at press conferences or available to the media while with the Browns this past year. I don't want a GM or anyone high up for a team I like that is scared to face backlash or questions for his decisions with the team.

 

Got it and thanks for the additional.

 

I wonder if Lombardi is one of those guys that makes good TV but not a good GM.

Sure...now. But, if they go 4-12 and he's facing some heat...will it still be the same?

 

That's a fair question and one that was asked to Haslam and Farmer often at the press conference today. I think it'd be a legitimate question for any franchise though if they were to go 4-12 or somehow regress even more.

Got it and thanks for the additional.

 

I wonder if Lombardi is one of those guys that makes good TV but not a good GM.

 

That seems to be the consensus around the league. From what I hear (I feel the same) is that he knows his stuff and is good on TV but it doesn't translate to the front office for whatever reason.

Lombardi is a self proclaimed polymath. Too smart on too many fronts and not good enough on the one that was paying the bills.

That's a fair question and one that was asked to Haslam and Farmer often at the press conference today. I think it'd be a legitimate question for any franchise though if they were to go 4-12 or somehow regress even more.

 

But, if it'd be unfair to judge a GM after one year, shouldn't it be the same for a head coach? You can't change coaches every year, can you?

But, if it'd be unfair to judge a GM after one year, shouldn't it be the same for a head coach? You can't change coaches every year, can you?

 

Haslam was all in for Chip Kelly last year but Banner + Lombardi didn't want to give him as much control as he wanted. Obviously they ended up hiring Chudzinski who was not their first chioce. After blowing many leads in fourth quarters and the team seeming like they had given up towards the end of the year, I think Haslam had enough. For me, personally, I think you need to get a guy in there you truly believe in. The Seahawks and multiple other teams have fired coaches after one year recently and it seemed to work out okay for them (not saying that will happen for the browns). Sometimes, it's better to recognize a mistake(s) earlier and acknowledge it rather than wait until it is too late.

 

I have no idea if you're a Bengals fan, but what about them keeping Marvin Lewis for 11 years now with zero playoff wins? How many years do you get to establish yourself as a winner? His 90-85-1 record screams mediocrity and under-achievement with the talent they've had of late but yet he stays as coach. Is that what people want?

Haslam was all in for Chip Kelly last year but Banner + Lombardi didn't want to give him as much control as he wanted. Obviously they ended up hiring Chudzinski who was not their first chioce. After blowing many leads in fourth quarters and the team seeming like they had given up towards the end of the year, I think Haslam had enough. For me, personally, I think you need to get a guy in there you truly believe in. The Seahawks and multiple other teams have fired coaches after one year recently and it seemed to work out okay for them (not saying that will happen for the browns). Sometimes, it's better to recognize a mistake(s) earlier and acknowledge it rather than wait until it is too late.

 

I have no idea if you're a Bengals fan, but what about them keeping Marvin Lewis for 11 years now with zero playoff wins? How many years do you get to establish yourself as a winner? His 90-85-1 record screams mediocrity and under-achievement with the talent they've had of late but yet he stays as coach. Is that what people want?

 

...here we go...

As a Browns fan I could see see settling some of the dysfunction around the team. Schaffer noted earlier that he believes a lot of potential head coaches turned down the job due to the GM more than the team.

 

Haslem still worries me as an owner but I do like that he isn't afraid to clean house if he doesn't believe it's working. Hopefully it'll work out.

Haslam was all in for Chip Kelly last year but Banner + Lombardi didn't want to give him as much control as he wanted. Obviously they ended up hiring Chudzinski who was not their first chioce. After blowing many leads in fourth quarters and the team seeming like they had given up towards the end of the year, I think Haslam had enough. For me, personally, I think you need to get a guy in there you truly believe in. The Seahawks and multiple other teams have fired coaches after one year recently and it seemed to work out okay for them (not saying that will happen for the browns). Sometimes, it's better to recognize a mistake(s) earlier and acknowledge it rather than wait until it is too late.

 

I have no idea if you're a Bengals fan, but what about them keeping Marvin Lewis for 11 years now with zero playoff wins? How many years do you get to establish yourself as a winner? His 90-85-1 record screams mediocrity and under-achievement with the talent they've had of late but yet he stays as coach. Is that what people want?

 

You're right. At some point in time you have to decide whether you're going to fish or cut bait. Not saying whether one year or eleven years is the right number, in either case. All I was pointing out is that new GM's usually say they're "100% behind the current coach", until the season begins and things go south. And that's when the buck usually gets passed.

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen in this case with the Browns, although it wouldn't surprise me if it did. If the former GM and CEO were part of the problem in them hiring a "big name" coach this time around, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they'll jettison the current guy if there's a chance of bringing someone else in. That's all I'm saying. (Sorry nkypete!)

You're right. At some point in time you have to decide whether you're going to fish or cut bait. Not saying whether one year or eleven years is the right number, in either case. All I was pointing out is that new GM's usually say they're "100% behind the current coach", until the season begins and things go south. And that's when the buck usually gets passed.

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen in this case with the Browns, although it wouldn't surprise me if it did. If the former GM and CEO were part of the problem in them hiring a "big name" coach this time around, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they'll jettison the current guy if there's a chance of bringing someone else in. That's all I'm saying. (Sorry nkypete!)

 

I completely agree with you on that. Who knows how many years or how long a person really deserves to prove they're the right man for the job. But yeah, new GM's do typically say that so if that new found optimism changed I wouldn't be surprised, i've seen it a million times.

 

You're right, there's a heck of a chance that happens if a horrible season were to happen again. Being in the top 3 for salary cap space, having 10 draft picks (including 2 first rounders), and rising stars like Joe Haden, Josh Gordon, Jordan Cameron, etc. the Browns are in prime position to make themselves a lot better and quickly too. I think that Haslam recognized this and realizes how important it is to have people he believes in to help the turn around. It was reported that Haslam basically had Banner forced on him by the NFL, so maybe he realized he couldn't do it with those guys anymore.

You're right. At some point in time you have to decide whether you're going to fish or cut bait. Not saying whether one year or eleven years is the right number, in either case. All I was pointing out is that new GM's usually say they're "100% behind the current coach", until the season begins and things go south. And that's when the buck usually gets passed.

 

I'm not saying it's going to happen in this case with the Browns, although it wouldn't surprise me if it did. If the former GM and CEO were part of the problem in them hiring a "big name" coach this time around, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they'll jettison the current guy if there's a chance of bringing someone else in. That's all I'm saying. (Sorry nkypete!)

 

NP, I was thinking that the thread was in danger of heading down another Bengals rollercoaster. All it takes is the right comment seen by the right people.

NP, I was thinking that the thread was in danger of heading down another Bengals rollercoaster. All it takes is the right comment seen by the right people.

 

:lol2: I know what you mean. Or should I say, I know WHO you mean. :sssh:

As Barney would say you have to "Nippet". Word is that Haslam will not fill CEO poisition he has a very good friend (Peyton Manning) who will retire in a year and will offer the job to him. They met and supposedly he told Haslam they would never be an good organization as long as Banner was there. Haslam hoping he can step in and advise team like Elway does.

As Barney would say you have to "Nippet". Word is that Haslam will not fill CEO poisition he has a very good friend (Peyton Manning) who will retire in a year and will offer the job to him. They met and supposedly he told Haslam they would never be an good organization as long as Banner was there. Haslam hoping he can step in and advise team like Elway does.

 

That's the word, they are setting it up for PM in 2-3 years. Gannon and Bruce Murray speculated that on Sirius 88 yesterday

Who's the #1 target for the Browns in FA? Is it Tate? It will be interesting to see what they do in the draft but anothe swing and miss at QB and they remain in the same quandry.