Banner: Ineffective to be 'Lightning Rod'
Joe Banner appeared on the WIP Morning Show today, very possibly because the host was not Angelo Cataldi but Howard Eklund, excuse me, Eskin. Banner gave some depth and context to last week's surprising news that he was stepping down as Eagles president.
Banner: Ineffective to be 'Lightning Rod'
Les Bowen, Daily News Staff Writer
Joe Banner appeared on the WIP Morning Show today, very possibly because the host was not Angelo Cataldi but Howard Eklund, excuse me, Eskin. Banner gave some depth and context to last week's surprising news that he was stepping down as Eagles president.
The headline for me came when Banner was asked by Al Morganti whether if he had it to do over, would he function so much as face of the franchise. Banner acknowledged that "frequently not fairly, I became a lightning rod" -- meaning fans came to perceive him negatively, through media mischaracterizations, in his view. "That's just not a constructive thing ... Once you become the lightning rod, you can't really be very effective," Banner said.
My view, this perception situation absolutely played a role in the events that led to Banner's departure.
Rhea Hughes got the heart of my puzzlement, voiced in a post here yesterday, when I said I still couldn't wrap my head around the idea of Banner leaving without having achieved the vindication of a Super Bowl.
"This was the very hardest part of the decision," Banner said. "I have said, though it's possible, I would be extremely surprised if I'm not here for this year's Super Bowl. Hopefully that blank will get filled in before I'm actually departing," except, after last week, fair or not, how much of the credit do you think the guy who stepped down is going to get, vs. Eagles coach Andy Reid or general manager Howie Roseman?
Remember when I wondered yesterday if part of the timing might just be that Banner didn't really see the Reid-Michael Vick Eagles winning the Super Bowl this year? Banner wasn't asked that today, but in continuing his answer to Rhea's question, he said: "The truth is, I was stuck at a point where I could forever --- you don't want to get stuck with waiting for something that may or may not happen."
Wow. Five or six years ago, if someone had showed me that quote and said it came from Joe Banner in regard to the Eagles' hopes of winning a Super Bowl, I would have refused to believe it. The Joe Banner of old had no doubt the Birds were going to win a Lombardi Trophy, sooner rather than later. He believed it, and he took offense if he thought YOU didn't believe it. Really interesting change there.
Eskin actually made a couple references to my post yesterday, which was reprinted in today's DN. At least I think that was what he was doing -- my questions were almost unrecognizable after passing through the Eskin filter, but he did address, with seeming incredulity, my stated desire to know whether we are now living in Andyworld or Howieworld. Eskin asked Banner why anyone would ever wonder about such a thing. Banner, to his credit, allowed that this "appears to be a relevant question" to a lot of people. (Ya think?) His conclusion, of course, was that Andy is in full charge, always has been, since Tom Modrak left 11 years ago, and presumably always will be.
Wonder when we can expect the Reid contract extension announcement, then?
There was a lot more in the 20-minute segment. A personal favorite of mine was when Banner was asked about the DeSean Jackson mess last season -- a reworking of DeSean's rookie contract never happened, and he sulked and slouched through a subpar year. After the season, Roseman took over the talks and a deal was struck almost immediately, even though the Eagles had franchised Jackson, retaining his rights without the risk of a longer-term commitment. (The sort of thing Banner might have seen as a prudent way to proceed.)
The answer to that one was vintage Banner. Joe opined that it was "not unusual for players to play in the last year of their contract," and that some of them handle it better than others. All true. Except, of those players across the league in that final year last season, how many had heard their teams admit at least a year earlier that they had outperformed their deals? How many had made the Pro Bowl twice while being paid under the paltry provisions of a second-round rookie pact? If you were to create a Venn diagram -- something I'm pretty sure Joe knows how to do -- the number of players in their final contract years who would fit in DeSean's exact part of the circle, and fit there happily, would be a really, really small slice of the old pie. And even then, you're not addressing the matter of whether it was ever NECESSARY for the player to play in the final year of his contract, whether the slow pace of talks came out of spite or pique or a disinclination to appear to be entertaining what Banner might have pereceived to be outrageous demands.
Of course, Banner is one of the smartest, sharpest guys around, as Phil Sheridan noted in the Inquirer last week. He knows all of this very well, even as he is glossing over it, which is what used to drive agents, players and sometimes reporters crazy.
Somewhere, sometime, Banner will resurface, running a franchise. He alluded in the WIP interview to "a lot of inquiries from basketball and hockey teams in particular," but said he would exhaust all opportunities in football before going that route. If there really is going to be an expansion franchise in Los Angeles, there might be no one on the planet better qualified to run it. But I'm not sure that laid-back media market is ready for the full Joe. What happens when he shows up in the Los Angeles Times offices demanding to know why the Dodgers or the Lakers got better play that Monday? Might be fun to find out.
Buy 2012 Philadelphia Eagles game tickets - Must I really name the last 14 Superbowl winners (and then some)? I think I understand your laughter.
In regards to the DJax contract situation, you are leaving out a big piece of the puzzle. The contract he signed under Roseman was no where close to what he had been asking for under Banner. He was using the horrible contract the Jets signed SHolmes to with close to 30 million guaranteed and he felt that was a starting point between Holmes and LFitz for his contract. If anything Banner was vindicated in the sense that DJax was never worth that kind of money and his season last year helped prove it. We'll see hiow happy DJax is if he rebounds with a good year and has the contract he signed to live with. Honestly, it was a mistake on his part. He should have played under the tag for 9 million. If he had a solid season, he could have signed a contract with 21 million guaranteed asking his overall take 30 million. Instead, he will have a solid season or two but still won't be a number 1 receiver. When the 15 million guaranteed is up, the Eagles will probably ask him to re-negotiate for less money unless he outperforms the contract. He will be too old to get the kind of money he could get next year with a solid season this year. Most fans think Rosenhaus is a hardline negotiator ala Scott Boras but the fact is, his clients leave tons of dough on the table— UncleStosh- Sure, Jackson could have played under the Franchise Tag, but what if he would have sustained a serious injury? Another concussion, perhaps? What if he just has a lousy season?
I have no doubt that if he performs at Pro Bowl level, he'll be whining again about his contract in a year or two, but that's down the road and both sides can worry about that when and if it happens. In the meantime, he's got good guaranteed money and the Eagles have a potentially premium wide receiver at a fair price. Sounds like a "win-win" to me.
— SteveS11 - UncleStosh, that's one way to view it, but here's another.
Jackson had to ask for so much because Banner's bargaining tactics required much more movement on the part of the players. - Joe Banner and Jeff Lurie. Who's taller? (Or shorter).— JoeC.
Comment removed.- Phillybigdoh,
See list of Super Bowl winners over the last 14 years.
Thanks for playing.— voodoochile75 - just go,please!!!!!!!!!!!— jabac
- If you were the one signing the checks, trust me, you'd have wanted Joe B on your side. He should have been a pr_ck. That was what he was paid to be.— Poppys
- How about this for a compromise? "Joe Banner did not deliver on the one promise that matters to Eagles fans, a Super Bowl victory. However, he did a very good job of helping to elevate and stabilize the franchise, getting it to the point where an 8-8 season and missing the playoffs by a hair's breadth is now considered a catastrophe, rather than an improvement. For that, he should be thanked and commended."— andrewfrombrooklyn
- what is this supposed to mean....?
Rhea Hughes got the heart of my puzzlement, voiced in a post here yesterday, when I said I still couldn't wrap my head around the idea of Banner leaving without having achieved the vindication of a Super Bowl.— mwright252 - i was cheering for the birds since a peanut farmer became president.
i like the stability and profesionalism banner brought.
i wish him well.
i start every sentence with i.— mwright252 - How is Howie doing to get credit for a Super Bowl when everyone knows it's Reid who pulls the strings that make the Eagles go? A Real General Manager controls the entire ball of wax, he has final say over the coach. There's no way I will ever believe that Lurie has made Howie the keeper of the gate over Andy Reid.
This reorganization makes for a great soap opera but based on the articles written by the Philly Sports Writers, none of the speculation has any believable reasoning.
I think if anything under Banner, Reid was playing good solider and not creating much in terms of waves to rock the boat. That makes more sense to me being Reid is in his first Head Coach position and time was needed to adjust. He's been at the helm 13 years now and has been pretty successful, and a two time Coach of the year.
Reid has done all of that despite not having Super Bowl talent on his teams.
I don't see how it's reasonable to sell that Howie is the reason for a super bowl if we should win this year. I'm never going to buy into that kind of thinking.
— Dexter - You won't have to worry about Roseman getting/not getting credit for the Super Bowl. As long as Reid is here, the Eagles will not win. — jman
- I kept re-reading to make sure I wasn't missing something, but it seems Les Bowen is actually crediting himself for being the one and only person curious as to who is really running the Eagles' ship now between Andy and Howie. The rest of this blog post is filled with too much of what's wrong with today's sports media: cynicism
