Let's see how Schwartz responds

by meiden Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:42 am

Berry has been the golden boy in OTAs and management has been selling him like there is no tomorrow. Now what happens?

The other big story in the backfield has been how Erik Coleman is ready to shine and push Spievey. Then the Lions go out and sign the safety from the Bucs. Now what happens?

This is what I hate about the spinning. There was no need to sell either Berry or Coleman yet Schwartz, Mayhew and Cunningham decided for some reason it was necessary. Berry has been a backup who is competing with others. Had it been left at that it would be easier for Schwartz to deal with the necessary punishment. With Coleman likely to be cut or camp fodder what do we do with all that praise heaped on him the last week?

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:00 am

Mike, I keep seeing you make comments about the spinning that goes on around the Lions. While I share your frustration with it, I'll lay the blame on the media. They are a deadline driven pack of hyenas that fight and scratch for scraps to take to fill their columns. They know just enough about the team to ask leading questions about perceived vulnerabilities of the team, then write so as to invite controversy. The coaches find it easier to deflect the prying and busy-body interference by giving them a sop than to have them continually hounding them for information. The better the team, the worse it gets, because the feeding crowd gets exponentially larger with every success. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

by Dawildboar Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:33 pm

My guess is he'll keep it in house as he's done since he was named coach. I'm sure Berry does not want to meet the Lions staff after this fiasco.

As far as the ass kissing comments, it's all over the place. Hell even Terrell Suggs is looking good after surgery but if he has to go on the PUP, Courtney Upshaw looks great!

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:53 am

My guess is he'll keep it in house as he's done since he was named coach. I'm sure Berry does not want to meet the Lions staff after this fiasco.

These idiot, stupid, selfish players do it because they can, knowing there will be no significant repercussions. Schwartz is very close to losing this team. In fact he may have already lost it. It started with his out of control outburst after the San Fran game last year. On the heels of everything that has gone on this off season any player with half a brain would not put himself in that position yet Berry feels the need to get behind the wheel drunk, crash into a couple cars and try to leave the scene without being caught, then is uncooperative with the police when they arrest him. The Lion's can do something about this if they choose to. Will they?????? I seriously doubt it. The below article gives examples. Please read this McB. It makes my case about the Lion's hands not being tied in repsect to disciplining players for "actions detrimental to team".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by meiden Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:21 am

RLMcB wrote: Mike, I keep seeing you make comments about the spinning that goes on around the Lions. While I share your frustration with it, I'll lay the blame on the media. They are a deadline driven pack of hyenas that fight and scratch for scraps to take to fill their columns. They know just enough about the team to ask leading questions about perceived vulnerabilities of the team, then write so as to invite controversy. The coaches find it easier to deflect the prying and busy-body interference by giving them a sop than to have them continually hounding them for information. The better the team, the worse it gets, because the feeding crowd gets exponentially larger with every success. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

My friend, you have always been one to give the benefit of doubt and I applaud you for that. My character flaw is that I look for character flaws. Bad trait and one I'd love to change. I just see Schwartz and Mayhew trying to constantly build their case as to why they made their decisions. We go with Broyles because we like Lacey and Berry so much at CB. We don't spend money on one of the three solid options in free agency at safety because Erik Coleman has looked so good in OTAs. We can go offense and more offense at the top of our draft because our defense was so good in the first few games of the season.

Anyone who looks at the team like I do and digging below the surface stats, sees things differently. You took Broyles because you are enamored with the WR position and Lacey and Berry have done absolutely nothing on the field. You didn't spend on FA because you seem to think that Speivey is the answer and will give him all the c hances in the world to fail even though he has shown some real fatal flaws for the position (inconsistent tackler and poor in coverage). You go offense and more offense either because you have this flawed idea that you can score so much every game that the defense is a non-issue or you believe that your great coaching can turn lemons into lemonade.

The media gets the story out but there is no quote unless Mayhew or Schwartz say it in the first place.

by meiden Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:25 am

Dawildboar wrote:My guess is he'll keep it in house as he's done since he was named coach. I'm sure Berry does not want to meet the Lions staff after this fiasco.

As far as the ass kissing comments, it's all over the place. Hell even Terrell Suggs is looking good after surgery but if he has to go on the PUP, Courtney Upshaw looks great!

Boar...I just haven't seen Schwartz keep much at all in house. He is quick to talk to the press about anything except injuries and has talked big about such things as Cherilus benching and Young's punishment. Why wouldn't he talk about some in-house punishment of Fairley, Leshoure and Berry? Because there is none of consequence.

It's like my kids told me once about a bball coach. Dad, I know that when coach just yells at us it's over it is done. I can get through the yelling then it's back to normal.

That coach is like Schwartz...a lot of hot air but no accountability.

by Guest Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:18 pm

Snooker28 wrote:My guess is he'll keep it in house as he's done since he was named coach. I'm sure Berry does not want to meet the Lions staff after this fiasco.

These idiot, stupid, selfish players do it because they can, knowing there will be no significant repercussions. Schwartz is very close to losing this team. In fact he may have already lost it. It started with his out of control outburst after the San Fran game last year. On the heels of everything that has gone on this off season any player with half a brain would not put himself in that position yet Berry feels the need to get behind the wheel drunk, crash into a couple cars and try to leave the scene without being caught, then is uncooperative with the police when they arrest him. The Lion's can do something about this if they choose to. Will they?????? I seriously doubt it. The below article gives examples. Please read this McB. It makes my case about the Lion's hands not being tied in repsect to disciplining players for "actions detrimental to team".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:32 pm

What Florio thinks and writes is far from what Mayhew and Schwartz use as guides to manage the Lions. Florio is free to use any supposition he pleases, while May/Wartz deal with live bodies that are perceives as family by their teammates. Being father figures as they are, they come from a different perspective, and must for the sake of unity. I give you as witness Tom Coughlin, who several years ago came within an eyelash of losing his team and his job. Tom changed from the harsh, dictatorial father figure to a much more genial coach/father figure. BTW, it worked, the reinvented Tom has won two SBs since. Epiphanies like that do not go unnoticed. We don't know what will or will not happen behind closed door. Maybe we wouldn't want to see any more than we want to see sausages constructed

by Guest Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:42 pm

RLMcB wrote:
Mike, I keep seeing you make comments about the spinning that goes on
around the Lions. While I share your frustration with it, I'll lay the
blame on the media. They are a deadline driven pack of hyenas that fight
and scratch for scraps to take to fill their columns. They know just
enough about the team to ask leading questions about perceived
vulnerabilities of the team, then write so as to invite controversy. The
coaches find it easier to deflect the prying and busy-body interference
by giving them a sop than to have them continually hounding them for
information. The better the team, the worse it gets, because the feeding
crowd gets exponentially larger with every success. That's my story and
I'm sticking to it.

My
friend, you have always been one to give the benefit of doubt and I
applaud you for that. My character flaw is that I look for character
flaws. Bad trait and one I'd love to change. I just see Schwartz and
Mayhew trying to constantly build their case as to why they made their
decisions. We go with Broyles because we like Lacey and Berry so much
at CB. We don't spend money on one of the three solid options in free
agency at safety because Erik Coleman has looked so good in OTAs. We
can go offense and more offense at the top of our draft because our
defense was so good in the first few games of the season.

Anyone
who looks at the team like I do and digging below the surface stats,
sees things differently. You took Broyles because you are enamored with
the WR position and Lacey and Berry have done absolutely nothing on the
field. You didn't spend on FA because you seem to think that Speivey
is the answer and will give him all the c hances in the world to fail
even though he has shown some real fatal flaws for the position
(inconsistent tackler and poor in coverage). You go offense and more
offense either because you have this flawed idea that you can score so
much every game that the defense is a non-issue or you believe that your
great coaching can turn lemons into lemonade.

The media gets the story out but there is no quote unless Mayhew or Schwartz say it in the first place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike, I only chose to respond to this post to ask a favor of you. Knowing how we are opposites on the spectrum of optimism and cynicism, I would love to know your take on John Roberts and how he came to the ruling he made. It can be given here or you may EMail it to me, whichever pleases you. Also how it will effect your business? I will, of course offer mine if you desire, which may surprise you.

by meiden Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:11 am

RLMcB wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
RLMcB wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE>
Mike, I only chose to respond to this post to ask a favor of you. Knowing how we are opposites on the spectrum of optimism and cynicism, I would love to know your take on John Roberts and how he came to the ruling he made. It can be given here or you may EMail it to me, whichever pleases you. Also how it will effect your business? I will, of course offer mine if you desire, which may surprise you.

Robert,

The ACA has already effected my business because I have five families who were on employee/spouse premiums which bumed to family premiums given they have at last one non-dependent son/daughter under 26. That part of the bill cost us over $5,000 per month. I was going to hire another recruiter but will do with what I have for now.

Still, I try to form my opinions about these things based on my understanding of the Constitution and secondly what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, not just my self-interest. I believe the ACA is unconstitutional and that Roberts got it wrong. I don't beleive there has ever been a "tax" for NOT participating in commere and by definition this cannot be a tax. Furthermore, I can't wrap my head around the ide that this is a penalty when considering the Tax Anti-Injunction Act but is a tax when considering the constitutionality of the mandate. Finally and maybe most disappointing is that Roberts let is concern regarding perception of the Court impact his decision at all. He should not consider the public's perception of the political leaning of the Court play any part in his opinion. Roberts dropped the ball on this one. What do you think?

by Guest Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:39 pm

Finally and maybe most disappointing is that Roberts let is concern
regarding perception of the Court impact his decision at all. He should
not consider the public's perception of the political leaning of the
Court play any part in his opinion. Roberts dropped the ball on this
one. What do you think? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks for answering my question, Mike. Laying aside for the moment about the constitutionality of the law, Roberts has thrown it back into the political arena where it will stand of fail on the merits in the end, I believe. The question should have been phrased a bit better, as I was interested in what you thought Robert's reasoning was. However, you did a great job of discerning my desire result to my question. Regardless of how he arrived at his decision, he made it for all the wrong reasons, as we both seem to agree. He made a political decision about a judicial matter. I believe he saw an opportunity to secure his place in history, as did Burger and Warren. He also found a way to grab the spotlight away from Scalia, and assure that the court will be the Robert's court going forward. As FDR said about the Chief Justice in the court packing episode of the 1930s, "The chief Justice is the smartest politician in Washington DC." Truly a tortuous ruling to find an obscure tax law to declare it a tax, IMO.

by meiden Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:51 pm

RLMcB wrote:He made a political decision about a judicial matter.

My friend, sometimes I marvel at how succinctly you can state your thoughts. This says it all!

by Guest Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:21 pm

Thanks, Mike, I take that, coming from you as high praise indeed. Now to use some of that ill gotten good will, I will lay out my thoughts about the law itself, apart from the SCOTUS decision. With it thrown back into the political arena, I think it is not the end, not even the beginning of the end. It's not even the end of the beginning, but, merely a short step from the beginning of the beginning. When passions finally calm a bit in Washington, District of Corruption, wiser heads can begin to cure the original problem of our nation health care. My guess is it will take years and years. First order of business is some reaching across the aisle with a hand of fellowship.

by Guest Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:09 pm

They way I see it, Robert's ruling had nothing to do with the Constitionality of the law, but rather the legality of how to fund it. I think the way the protest was written was the reason Robert's made his decision. And as for the law itself and your business, I would think that your competition also has to play with the ame rules which should mean a level playing field. I do feel that this flaw in the appeal shows a lack of intelligence in our Congress. Or in other words, is that the best they can do?

by Guest Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:09 am

See my next post on the Roberts decision.

by Guest Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:14 pm

That catastrophic policy shouldn't even exist in the first place. NowIF by some sort of 'miracle' the government and insurance get their act togerther and make this work in a good way. Notice the if is big. Since 95% of US hospitals are public, which also means non-profit, and since a typical collection rate on care given is About 46%, hospitals should be a lot closer to collecting 100%. And remember this: insurance companies, paying patients, and our taxes make uo the difference. Uninsured do not get preventative care. They show up at a hospital when they can't go on any more and then the treatment can be extensive. Precare alone will lower cost. The improved collection rate of hospitals will lower insurance rates. Remember, now most everyone now has insurance, the paying portions rates will be lower if we are not supporting the non paying section. The part hospitals now collect from our taxes will now help pay for the portion who can't pay for insurance.---I hope I stated that right.

by Sponsored content

Let's see how Schwartz responds

Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

See my next post

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds

Re: Let's see how Schwartz responds