Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : Trust me when I tell you you're 180 degrees wrong on that.    You, however, are in a union or a pro union as we learned.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]


    Nothing wrong in my mind about being "pro union," but I don't think anyone's tried to unionize management consultants . . . they pay us well enough as it is . . . 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : Nothing wrong in my mind about being "pro union," but I don't think anyone's tried to unionize management consultants . . . they pay us well enough as it is . . . 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Nothing wrong? Have you seen our school systems and did you watch us bailout the auto industry?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]So, you think Woodhead is more of a lead back than what BJGE is? How many games do you think we lost when BJGE was our lead back here? I'll give you a hint:  It's close to your IQ. lol
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    I think the whole question is dumb and meaningless.  "Lead back" isn't really a position. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : Nothing wrong? Have you seen our school systems and did you watch us bailout the auto industry?
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Personally, I think the auto bailout worked out okay . . . and the problems with the auto industry aren't just due to the union.  

    And the performance of students in your school system has a lot more to do with parenting than teaching . . . 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    1. I don't think the pats are destined for a dramatic offensive overhaul. They are simply adding complimentary pieces to an already potent offense. We all cried for a receiver that could get downfield and they grabbed 2. They added another solid TE and some fb's. I don't see the offensive philosophy changing that much. Your top 3 pass catchers remain the same. We are now just able to open the field up a bit more for them and guys like Lloyd and stallworth need to be respected. 2. I don't think Mankins is overpaid...the issue I have is sinking so much money into his position. I don't think there is any signifant drop off between he and Connolly. I would have chose to use that money someplace else.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : Personally, I think the auto bailout worked out okay . . . and the problems with the auto industry aren't just due to the union.   And the performance of students in your school system has a lot more to do with parenting than teaching . . . 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]


    Right, except in both cases the root cause of the failures are the systems, not the people.

    Root cause.

    Of course some parents are dumb or bad parents.  That will always be the case.  That will never change.

    Similarly, of course some companies like a GM will be mismanaged, but to pretend unions aren't a major problem in terms of spiking costs or contributing to a failing quality problem is ludicrous.   Unions also shield management from being held more accountable because the focus is more on the relationship with the union v.s. the quality of the product and the consumer.

    Unions are only necessary in industries with abuses.   The guy on the assembly line who dropped out of high school working a 5 hour shift isn't abused.  You're pro union and don't even know why. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : Right, except in both cases the root cause of the failures are the systems, not the people. Root cause. Of course some parents are dumb or bad parents.  That will always be the case.  That will never change. Similarly, of course some companies like a GM will be mismanaged, but to pretend unions aren't a major problem in terms of spiking costs or contributing to a failing quality problem is ludicrous.   Unions also shield management from being held more accountable because the focus is more on the relationship with the union v.s. the quality of the product and the consumer. Unions are only necessary in industries with abuses.   The guy on the assembly line who dropped out of high school working a 5 hour shift isn't abused.  You're pro union and don't even know why. 
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    You can't resist the ad hominems can you?  That's what has started to bug me about you.  (Honestly, I used to enjoy your posts, Rusty, but you've gone so over the top with your incessent and juvenile assertions of self-superiority and insults directed at others, that you've become nothing but annoying.)  You were saying a few sensible things in the post above, worthy of discussion even, until you got to:  "You're pro union and don't even know why."

    Well, I bet I know a whole lot more about how unions and companies work--not just in the US but also in Canada and Europe--than you do.  And I have very mixed opinions about unions.  Some positive, some quite negative.  The one thing that you say that I think is quite smart above is about management's focus shifting a bit from the customer to the union.  It's true that the auto companies became very internally focused and in part that was because they paid too much attention to labour relations and too little to their products or markets.  But that wasn't fully the result of a union being there . . . it was also the result of rather complacent management teams.  There are plenty of other industries where management is energetic enough to balance labour relations with all the other things  that are important to run a company well.  

    As far as unions go, Germany is a very interesting case.  They have an economy that is about as strong as any in the Western world right now with a more vibrant manufacturing sector than many Western companies.  And their workforce is much, much more heavily unionized than in the US, Canada, the UK, or many other places.  Germany shows that unions aren't necessarily bad for the economy . . . and, in fact, might even be good for it.  A lot depends on the relationship between union and management and the willingness of both sides to accept each other and work together.  When they do accept each other and decide to work together, the balance of power between management and labour and a certain "creative tension" that exists between the two parties can be quite productive, I think.  When they look at each other suspiciously, though, the relationship tends to get adversarial and unproductive, which unfortunately is what you see more in the US and here in Canada.  

    The NFL Players Association is a whole different kettle of fish, because there you have unionized workers with real leverage thanks to their rare and highly in-demand talents.  That's a very interesting case where a union might actually be more beneficial to the owners than to the workers. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    I think a return to the 2007 type of offense wouldn't be so bad.

    Remember, before Sammy Morris got hurt against Dallas at midseason, despite all of the fireworks and pyrotechnics in the passing game, they were running the ball more often and were somewhat balanced in their approach.

    After Morris went down they began to rely more heavily on the pass--that's the way I remember it anyway.

    They also, I think, got all caught up in setting records later in the season--Moss going for the 23 TD catches and Brady going for the 50 TD passes. I distinctly remember the blowout home wins over the Jets and Miami in December when they weren't even trying to run the offense in the final quarter: Brady was just chucking it long to Moss, hoping to get the TD passes that would bring them both closer to the NFL records.

    In the post-season, they got two 100-yard games out of Maroney. In fact, it was switching to a more "pounding" offensive approach that bailed them out in the AFC title game against SD.

    I still, to this day, do not understand why the running game was abandoned in the Super Bowl. I heard Heath Evans say recently that when the Giants held the ball for the first 10 minutes of the game and kicked a field goal, that McDaniels decided that the offense needed to run less and throw more because almost 1/4 of the game had already gone by and the offense hadn't even touched the ball yet.

    In other words, the Giants' first offensive possession of the game basically "forced" McDaniels to change the game plan--Evans had said that the Pats planned to run the ball much more in that game going into it.

    Whatever the case, the offense seems to rely more and more on the passing game/shotgun these days--even moreso than in 2007. If they go back to what they were doing in the first half of the 2007 season (pre-Morris' injury), then that would be a fair compromise between what they were doing back in 2003 offensively, and what they've been doing the last three seasons offensively.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]I think a return to the 2007 type of offense wouldn't be so bad. Remember, before Sammy Morris got hurt against Dallas at midseason, despite all of the fireworks and pyrotechnics in the passing game, they were running the ball more often and were somewhat balanced in their approach. After Morris went down they began to rely more heavily on the pass--that's the way I remember it anyway. They also, I think, got all caught up in setting records later in the season--Moss going for the 23 TD catches and Brady going for the 50 TD passes. I distinctly remember the blowout home wins over the Jets and Miami in December when they weren't even trying to run the offense in the final quarter: Brady was just chucking it long to Moss, hoping to get the TD passes that would bring them both closer to the NFL records. In the post-season, they got two 100-yard games out of Maroney. In fact, it was switching to a more "pounding" offensive approach that bailed them out in the AFC title game against SD. I still, to this day, do not understand why the running game was abandoned in the Super Bowl. I heard Heath Evans say recently that when the Giants held the ball for the first 10 minutes of the game and kicked a field goal, that McDaniels decided that the offense needed to run less and throw more because almost 1/4 of the game had already gone by and the offense hadn't even touched the ball yet. In other words, the Giants' first offensive possession of the game basically "forced" McDaniels to change the game plan--Evans had said that the Pats planned to run the ball much more in that game going into it. Whatever the case, the offense seems to rely more and more on the passing game/shotgun these days--even moreso than in 2007. If they go back to what they were doing in the first half of the 2007 season (pre-Morris' injury), then that would be a fair compromise between what they were doing back in 2003 offensively, and what they've been doing the last three seasons offensively.
    Posted by hardright[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely spot on.  I heard the same Evans interview. I believe it was also the same one where he explained why the Manboobs/BB relationship frayed. It was due to Manboobs not doing his job in the 2005 playoffs and shopping himself for a raise to coach the Jets.  This was before he tried to steal the data off the Pats laptops and was locked out of Gillette.

    Funny how our are hero players on the 2007 D allowed an opening drive of 10 minutes, but you don't hear a peep from the BBWs on that now with this D and how Brady's INTs, Safety and Welker drop were the main reasons the TOP was titled in favor of the Giants this time around.

    Finally, I think McDaniels over-thought the approach.  Our offense is alwasy WORSE and less fluid when they over-think it. Always. And, this just proves BB doesn't micromanage the OC.  BB does not run the offense, folks.






     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In response to "Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : I had no idea a bd consultant in healthcare/medical device worked in a call center. You're a moron. Pay your union dues yet? lmao Did you ever tell us when your 1st Pats game was, Johnny (Come Lately)? Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE] I'm in a union... You are the worse kind toool you know that. Biggest loser of all. 1k posts in a month, easily over 15k post in the past year and this wipeout feels he has the right to call people names and chiat on people at will. I'm not even talking about football, I'm talking about the fact that u call people names you wouldn't dare say in person. I would pick u up and play you like an accordian if you called me any such thing in person. Yes I'm a union guy and not rich, I'm a 29 year old blue collar guy who gets his hands dirty and works hard to pay his mortgage. Your attitude stinks bro regardless of what u think you know about football. I can't keep up with your relentless non stop no life posting, however I will be in Beantown the weekend of the 13th if you really want to talk about it.. Of course you won't cause there's no keyboard in front of you and your really a puss And have zero testicular fortitude to call me a union drip in person.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]I think a return to the 2007 type of offense wouldn't be so bad. Remember, before Sammy Morris got hurt against Dallas at midseason, despite all of the fireworks and pyrotechnics in the passing game, they were running the ball more often and were somewhat balanced in their approach. After Morris went down they began to rely more heavily on the pass--that's the way I remember it anyway. They also, I think, got all caught up in setting records later in the season--Moss going for the 23 TD catches and Brady going for the 50 TD passes. I distinctly remember the blowout home wins over the Jets and Miami in December when they weren't even trying to run the offense in the final quarter: Brady was just chucking it long to Moss, hoping to get the TD passes that would bring them both closer to the NFL records. In the post-season, they got two 100-yard games out of Maroney. In fact, it was switching to a more "pounding" offensive approach that bailed them out in the AFC title game against SD. I still, to this day, do not understand why the running game was abandoned in the Super Bowl. I heard Heath Evans say recently that when the Giants held the ball for the first 10 minutes of the game and kicked a field goal, that McDaniels decided that the offense needed to run less and throw more because almost 1/4 of the game had already gone by and the offense hadn't even touched the ball yet. In other words, the Giants' first offensive possession of the game basically "forced" McDaniels to change the game plan--Evans had said that the Pats planned to run the ball much more in that game going into it. Whatever the case, the offense seems to rely more and more on the passing game/shotgun these days--even moreso than in 2007. If they go back to what they were doing in the first half of the 2007 season (pre-Morris' injury), then that would be a fair compromise between what they were doing back in 2003 offensively, and what they've been doing the last three seasons offensively.
    Posted by hardright[/QUOTE]

    Good post and lets not forget that if it wasn't for Maroney rushing 22 for 120 against SD, our passing offense might have given the game away (literally) with 2 int's.

    We did run the ball well in 07 despite injuries to Maroney and Sammy Morris, they both averaged 4.5 ypc and Maroney had 44 carries for 240 yards and I think 2 tds in the 1st 2 post season games.

    Brady is now 35 years old. Lets get a big RB and platoon him with Ridley,Vareen and Woody and help keep Brady's jersey clean, get better T.O.P and help our young defense get better by keeping them off the field.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In response to "Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man": [QUOTE]Dear "HotBliss", You sound like you're in a union. Insecure. Look another post!  Wow!  I won't be in Beantown on the 13th. I'll be in Georgia, however. Feel free to come on down. I'll be sure to make time for you as you hide behind a union, internet tough guy.    YOU'RE the tool.   Insecure, weak upbringing, lashing out at people because you don't want to learn and are angry about it.  Why not get your hands dirty and not be in a union?   Ever think of that? PS You have no life if you read this board as much as you apparently do. Choosing to sit idly by and not post doesn't mean you somehow have more of a life than I do.  Sorry. I also pay a mortgage. Wow! Worst logic ever. Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE] 1000 post in a 3 week span. 25k post in a 2 year span. Banned at least 5 times in a 3 year span. And I'm the Internet tough guy? Lmao Like seriously, what kind of loser posts a 1000 times in a 3 week span. Everyone take a second to process what it takes to be that big of a wipeout.lol I don't even need to revert to insults..dude your the biggest loser on the planet. There's more to life then Boston.com... Fresh air might enable you to remove your tampon once in a while. Your next tag when you get banned again should be "happy fingers".
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]Anyway, I'd like to point out how the insecure BBW, Prolate ,has done his best to spam and ruin a thread. This topic was intended to discuss how Mike Lombardi is giving us a hint about what BB is doing in acknolwdhing our offense needs some serious changing, due to finesse failures in the playoffs in recent years. Thank you, BB.  There is still hope to ween Brady from his addiction. Good work, Prolate. You succeeded somewhat, but as anyone can see, your trollwork is as bad as Babe Parilli here.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Don't talk about people ruining threads, you've taken (once again might i add) something someone has said taken the parts which were relevant to your argument and thrown the rest out. The rest just happens to be the that disproves what you've said you were talking about going back to 04 weis base, Lombardi wasn't he was talking about going back to the 07 base. Once again i agree we need to run more but you can't just keep taking things and twisting them to say what you want to hear!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In response to "Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man": [QUOTE]I guess the same loser who sends off a lot of emails for his job everyday. But, I am not in manual labor and VERY, VERY successful like yourself. lmao Acutally, your shock of that rate of any typing isn't surprising now that I think about it. You probably didn't go to college and may not have graduated high school, so typing very fast, multitasking, etc, aren't skills you learned. The better question is, how hard is it to have multiple internet windows open at once?  Also, I post on the B;s board and music board.   Ironicaly, I have no issues there and see little trollwork and insecurity there. Hmm. Also, I love fresh air.  I'm going camping twice this year (as for now) and going to music festivals with my gf and friends.  I also mountain bike and play some golf. There are many things I do as hobbies that you would have no clue about, but for now I am enjoying a leisurely Saturday before heading out to a wedding tonight.  What are you doing? I am going to the outer banks next weekend because a friend is not using their beach house.   And you? lmao Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE] Actually since you ask...a night on the town tonight followed by a suite at the westin harbor castle breaking the back on a red head.. Thanks for explaining yourself though, and apparently your not insecure. Lmao
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man : False. It's the same people who contribute NOTHING to this board, who ruin them. This thread is a perfect example.  Dont Sleep and myself both saw this Lombardi thing and actually posted the interesting piece on this board within 2 minutes of one another.  But, what happens? Mine gets derailed by people with no genuine interest in discussing the Pats related topic. Notice how when I rarely start a thread, trolls and irrationals swarm and ruin the thread with their agendas.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    So you honestly admit that you think Lombadi's piece incinuate that we are going to be moving to more of a power running attack? Honestly now i'm not trying to be smart but i really think it doesn't say that I think it talks about a power passing attack. I don't he's right either in what he's said but it doesn't change the fact you copied and pasted what you wanted in order to facilitate your own argument
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from HOTBLITZ. Show HOTBLITZ's posts

    Re: Michael Lombardi A Smart Man

    No call girls here bud..some of us actually interact with eachother in real life, and with females to Boot and on top of that there's no fee.. Actual real life relationships..quite the concept eh Russ... There's more to life then keyboards, computer screens and bb posters covered in rusty juice...lmao
     

Share