Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 442
  1. #49

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenous1 View Post
    I really like your post. I think its one of the more fair and balanced ones that almost mirrors my thoughts on him.
    JLC is like so many in our world today, an extremist. He takes an idea or thought and takes it to the absolute extreme.
    Thanks. I've compared JLC to Preston, whose hot takes are designed to rile us rather than inform us. It assumes we're not smart enough to think for ourselves.

    Perhaps blame falls on their bosses, who demand hot takes to build an audience. Someone like that sees this thread and believes their strategy is working. We're discussing the station. Even bad PR is PR, right?

    Personally, I can honestly say I've cut way back on listening when JLC and his lapdog are on air. I'll check in sometimes and listen for awhile until one of these hot take rants pop up, and then abandon ship. It's too frustrating to have BS shoveled at me. It's just not entertaining, much less informative. It's anti-informative.
    "That's what."
    — She





  2. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall, MD
    Posts
    36,089

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankyouArt! View Post
    Were you not somehow involved? or had some connection to the spat between JLC and EDC? EDC's wife was pulled in to a conversation? I think you wrote something on it?
    How was I involved?

    Opining on the incendiary behavior of the IA hosts and that makes me involved?

    Please explain...
    Follow me on Twitter @RSRLombardi





  3. #51

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by TL24x7 View Post
    How was I involved?

    Opining on the incendiary behavior of the IA hosts and that makes me involved?

    Please explain...
    I am sorry.....I didn't mean you were directly involved. That was a bad choice of words. It was just that the reason I remember it was because of something you wrote. My apologies.I deleted the post......





  4. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    11,098

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenous1 View Post
    I really like your post. I think its one of the more fair and balanced ones that almost mirrors my thoughts on him.
    JLC is like so many in our world today, an extremist. He takes an idea or thought and takes it to the absolute extreme.
    He provides one side of the argument (his side), showing the teams that cash over cap worked for but neglecting to show the fallout that follows for not just those teams but the many other teams that go cash over cap and have no trophies to show for it. That is just poor journalism and leaves me thinking he has an ax to grind for some reason with the organization.

    It's not that Steve B does not agree with the cash over cap model, it's that he is cheap. An idea I find ridiculous. Cheap is spending at the cap floor or leaving 20 million on the table to spend when you have a team that can win. Your not cheap for saying that we will not conduct our business in a way that leaves our fans watching a crappy, aging team with no money to improve or keep their best players because they blew todays salary cap over the past 5 years in the hope of winning a SB. That is a philosophical difference in how to run a team, one that he payed a shitload of money for and a philosophy IMO that is founded in a lot of common sense.

    I think its fair to debate if a team should CONSIDER going cash over cap during a window when they have a REAL chance of winning a SB.
    Since 2010, the only SB winners to not go cash over cap are.... the Patriots who had a hometown discount at the most expensive position (QB) and yes our Baltimore Ravens. That is not simply an anomaly, it's a trend. There are plenty of teams who have gone this route and have nothing to show for it. Again, I am not a fan of this trend, I do however think that a fair discussion that looks at the pluses and minuses is good to have. To bad JLC rather than doing that, presents it in a way that only a narcissist can, bombastically, loud and without consideration or thoughtful analysis of all sides of the argument. Sadly this behavior is commonplace and rewarded in all walks of life. He's just a symptom of a bigger and worse illness IMO.
    Cash over cap is not necessarily a win-now measurement. It happens just because of when contracts come due.

    I guarantee the year we paid $80-something million in signing bonuses to Humphrey and Stanley, cash-over-cap went up.

    JLC wants to see cash-over-cap? Wait til Lamar signs. If they give him a big signing bonus, c-o-c will be huge that season, and JLC won't have anything to complain about. But that's okay. He'll be able to complain about it every year after, because all that cash will have already been paid, so we will still be up against the cap, but not shelling out cash anymore, and he can whine about Bisciotti being cheap again, when in fact it's just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet and has nothing to do with how much money a team spends.
    "Chin up, chest out."





  5. #53

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by HotInHere View Post
    JLC wants to see cash-over-cap? Wait til Lamar signs.
    This was the point I was making.

    I think it's fair to argue the merits of loading up on big contracts, however.

    Many fans over the years have talked about the "window" for chasing the Super Bowl and have used that as justification for signing a slew of big time free agents. The Ravens in fact did that after winning their first Super Bowl. Eventually it crushed them and probably cost Billick his job. And, as I said, it wrecked the former Redskins franchise.

    While there are other situations where cash over cap applies—essentially the reverse of win now, at the tail end of when future obligations come due—JLC is pushing for the strategy as a "win now" idea. Actually, he seems to be implying that you can just spend over the cap in perpetuity, because the cap is an artificial constraint.

    Still, even though I don't endorse the strategy, I understand that may on this very board have, and I accept the argument.

    My problem with JLC is his assertion that a ballsy owner who wants to win will employ the strategy, and so that makes Bisciotti a cheap owner who doesn't care about winning.

    When you say that, without honestly explaining the pros and cons of "cash over cap", instead just continuing to smugly cackle on air, then you've lost credibility with me.

    EDIT: Actually, I just remembered that TL wrote a piece dispelling the cash-over-cap BS couple months ago. How did I forget? Has it been cited here already?

    I was reminded because of the Lamar contract mention, which is the very example cited in the piece. He shows how a market-level five-year contract extension for Lamar would push the Ravens from 23rd to 6th in cash spending this year. Showing how flimsy the JLC argument is.

    Of course, JLC has also been implying for months that the Ravens are lowballing Lamar (dovetailing with his cheap owner narrative) and so while it's possible for Bisciotti to spend into the upper atmosphere with one contract, JLC wants you to believe he refuses.

    I don't think history supports the assertion that Bisciotti won't spend like that. He once gave Flacco the biggest contract in the league. They've dumped more money into their secondary than anyone.

    This actually ties into the SI article that praises the team for strategically investing, but not overpaying. I guess it will take overpaying to shut down the JLC narrative.
    Last edited by Shas; 06-23-2022 at 11:17 AM.
    "That's what."
    — She





  6. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    11,098

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    This was the point I was making.

    I think it's fair to argue the merits of loading up on big contracts, however.
    ...
    I agree with your overall point. But I'm pointing out that it's not necessarily a question of "loading up on big contracts," a la the Rams. Every team is going to sign some big contracts. Good teams are going to sign even more of them. *When* you sign them is somewhat random, and that's the primary determining factor in cash-over-cap.

    For example, if you happen to have a really good draft, you're going to write some really big checks in four years. Then in that particular year, you will be higher in cash v cap, and as a consequence, you will be LOWER in successive years. (It is also of course affected by your aggressiveness in FA vs the draft, and your decision to use voidable years, etc. But those things are not the primary drivers.)

    My point is, as bad as you're saying JLC is, I'm saying he's even worse. You're saying he's not discussing both sides of the cash/cap issue. I'm saying the cash/cap issue is almost entirely irrelevant. It's a red herring. It's proof that he either does not understand the salary cap at all, or he does understand and is just willfully leading fans who aren't familiar with the cap into a pool of misinformation.
    "Chin up, chest out."





  7. #55

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by HotInHere View Post
    My point is, as bad as you're saying JLC is, I'm saying he's even worse. You're saying he's not discussing both sides of the cash/cap issue. I'm saying the cash/cap issue is almost entirely irrelevant. It's a red herring. It's proof that he either does not understand the salary cap at all, or he does understand and is just willfully leading fans who aren't familiar with the cap into a pool of misinformation.
    Okay, got it.

    Maybe not entirely. I do think the Rams are employing a particularly specific strategy that's at the other end of the spectrum as the Ravens. But for the most part I think you're right that it's fairly arbitrary.

    1. Rams $293,829,682
    2. Bills $287,257,287
    3. Browns $284,207,719
    4. Saints $283,576,312
    5. Jaguars $280,108,342
    6. Jets $270,145,814
    7. Packers $265,354,401
    8. Buccaneers $262,060,659
    9. Dolphins $260,948,677
    10. Chargers $259,750,660
    11. Panthers $254,153,637
    12. Raiders $243,320,790
    13. Lions $242,981,696


    I think some of these are examples of quarterback-contract-driven timing. And some of these are examples of free spending teams. What is interesting is that this list of top cash-spenders includes some of worst performing teams of recent years (Hello Browns, Jags, Jets, Panthers, Lions). There are some aggressive owners who still don't win (Panthers). And at least one team that is known for notoriously cheap ownership (Chargers).

    All of which supports your point that it's somewhat arbitrary, not a barometer for winning, and JLC is full of shit.
    "That's what."
    — She





  8. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall, MD
    Posts
    36,089

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankyouArt! View Post
    I am sorry.....I didn't mean you were directly involved. That was a bad choice of words. It was just that the reason I remember it was because of something you wrote. My apologies.I deleted the post......
    Art, let me apologize for being so forward. I can feel my body tense up with just the thought of being associated with that pairing! You're good and thanks for your participation in these forums.
    Follow me on Twitter @RSRLombardi





  9. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    15,024
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    Okay, got it.

    Maybe not entirely. I do think the Rams are employing a particularly specific strategy that's at the other end of the spectrum as the Ravens. But for the most part I think you're right that it's fairly arbitrary.

    1. Rams $293,829,682
    2. Bills $287,257,287
    3. Browns $284,207,719
    4. Saints $283,576,312
    5. Jaguars $280,108,342
    6. Jets $270,145,814
    7. Packers $265,354,401
    8. Buccaneers $262,060,659
    9. Dolphins $260,948,677
    10. Chargers $259,750,660
    11. Panthers $254,153,637
    12. Raiders $243,320,790
    13. Lions $242,981,696


    I think some of these are examples of quarterback-contract-driven timing. And some of these are examples of free spending teams. What is interesting is that this list of top cash-spenders includes some of worst performing teams of recent years (Hello Browns, Jags, Jets, Panthers, Lions). There are some aggressive owners who still don't win (Panthers). And at least one team that is known for notoriously cheap ownership (Chargers).

    All of which supports your point that it's somewhat arbitrary, not a barometer for winning, and JLC is full of shit.
    Bill Polian broke what the Rams do better than anyone I have heard describe it. My recall isn't specific, he said they pay big coin for a few premium players and not bother with 1st rounders, get solid contributors in a few areas, when average guys get expensive, they walk, and then fill out the rest of the roster with cheap help.

    He literally crushed any theory the cap is fake and that the Rams are a model to follow, he said they do it and do it well, but not every team has the people in place and capacity to make the right judgment calls on when and where to spend big and give away picks. Perfect example of what not to do is the Browns.

    So 105.7 and JLC could do with listening to NFL SiriusXM and Bill Polian who has more football knowledge in his pinky than these guys and that station have in their collective brains.





  10. #58

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Thanks for that info. Interesting.

    My sense is that the goal at the local station isn't knowledge, it's stirring emotions to chase ratings.

    That said, there are still a few shows I enjoy on the station. Even with Vinny Cerrato, I tune into Bob Haney mid morning when I can. Jerry Coleman, believe it or not, is entertaining by himself at night (he was terrible in the role of the morning show class clown). Mike Popovich deserves more air time. And I'm kind of liking the Glenn and Rita weekend show.
    "That's what."
    — She





  11. #59

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    They're a joke. Their "show" is about 50% commercials, 40% them kibitzing like a bunch of 15 year olds and 10% opinions.





  12. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ravenland, USA
    Posts
    2,805

    Re: 105.7 - Sickening

    Quote Originally Posted by veritas View Post
    They're a joke. Their "show" is about 50% commercials, 40% them kibitzing like a bunch of 15 year olds and 10% opinions.
    Speaking of commercials, and to be fair, I don't listen to a lot of radio for comparison but 105.7 literally does seem to be something like 60% commercials and 40% actual content. And 50% of their content is crap. Lol

    One show will sign off at 3 minutes before the hour. 3 minutes of commercials to the top of the hour, then news and weather, then the next shows theme "song", a few more commercials and then maybe at 7 minutes past the hour the next show starts.

    Plus most of the shows aren't good. Inside Access is the worst but the morning show is a bit of a joke. Vinnie and Haney are "ok" but do we really need a stock market report on a sports show?

    And for all the flak Coleman gets his nighttime show is fairly entertaining. And Popovich should get more air time.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->