All Activity

to me, it's one of two things... either the Eli boosters here are just wrong... or maybe he is a better C but the team valued his ability as the sixth man higher because Kolo would be even more useless if he was anything other than C...

me too lol In all honesty...he has never been givin a legit chance to settle in..work out the kinks I not saying I the know all be all, but have worked with and seen a lot of guys in my time...He has the legit talent and athleticism to thrive...But was saddled with a knucklehead of a HC....SORRY of offended some you he cant do no wrong crowd...but varying success aside...he is, and too much credit praise was heaped on him...One man wasnt the rason we were...key word..were the creme de la creme

Yes ...I'm exempt as well.......

I agree....but also Osh has way more say in what you giving him credit for....if we wanna call it credit....Walter's needs to not succomb to Osh's whining and rants...confirmed btw I sure he heard a lot about his boi JT and KOLO....maybe he didnt wanna hear any more possy whining?? Fact of matter tho..Osh decides the fate of the roster and who is kept..played etc...and of this is soley on Walters as a poor decision (which I doubt 100%) and Osh keeps him over hyounger better talent...and then plays him...or any other older dud at the expense of a better player....proof positive we shoulda moved on from both of em...I smell another putrid camp coming up...questionable rostering...needless play of excessive Canadians and a nice view from 5th looking up yeah...if u havnt learned after 3 failed tries doing it...U never are gonna we shouldnt have butt buddies as GM and HC....Flawed every which way you slice it...we've lived it something that Osh over the whole tenure he that he is incapable of...to think he finally gonna in yr 14 is a pipe dream and unrealistic

lol

I agree in general. However, once your coach shows that he is apt to making the wrong decision then you need to take that choice away from him sometimes. Part of a GM's job sometimes is to know your coaches strengths and weaknesses and help offset them through the players you choose to sign. He'd be a good get, but I think if he was a realistic target of ours we would have probably parted with T.Jones by now.

Dude, you've been wrong in your opinion as many times as you have been right....and that applies to most of us here.

See what I mean?

I can dig it.....

There's nothing wrong with a gm bringing vets to camp... but it's up to the head coach to assess camp and decide the vet has lost his job.

United does not mean that every decision is made together in total agreement and that a GM never exercises the right to over rule his HC. I can't think of any instance where a GM just automatically bows to every wish of a GM. He may try to accommodate as much as possible but I cannot name a single instance of any GM doing whatever the HC asks of him. That's nonsense. So, in that regard I can think of many instances of success where the GM and HC are separate roles and have had great success. Any team who has both a GM, and a HC and has won recently has done so because the GM has built the roster, albeit with input from many sources including the HC, then negotiated the deals that make sense and then the HC coaches what he is supplied with. I have zero doubt that almost every GM supplies the kind of team that the coach requests, and that he listens to the coach when it comes to specific players that mesh with what the coach is looking for. I, also, have zero doubt that most GMs don't sign every single player that a coach wants. Jim Barker said in an interview with Peterson on his podcast that the reason he lost his GM job in Toronto was that he listened to his HC too much. (It was a joke because he was in a dual role,) But he went on to further explain that a good GM needs to seperate the roles, as coaches don't care about SMS, or long term viability of the team. They want to win now and that is not a good approach to sustainability. He said the GM has to sometimes tell the coach no to certain players and he said that is very tough to do when you wear both hats.

Can you think of any successful cases of that being the case currently, or recently, in the cfl? For the life of me, I can't think of a time the GM and HC weren't in lock step. Even the two power-mad guys in Montreal are united. Still a pending free agent. I'd love him, but I don't think we kick the tires on him.

This feels like Osh telling Walters he wants Kyrie back, then Walters signs him knowing full well if he doesn't O'Shea is gonna dig his heels in anyway. But this isn't new, we knew what we were getting when we signed O'Shea for another 3 years

I was secretly hoping we would find some loonies to sign Wynton McManis........or has he re-signed with Argos?

That is all fine and good. However, it is not a flaw for a GM to over rule a HC when it comes down to it. MOS is a player's coach and with that comes a very real vulnerability as a coach, and that is loyalty to a fault. Walters MUST be able to make that distinction when it happens and act accordingly....and yes that is how football works in this day and age, and every other day and age, MOS may not like it, but that is where they need to find the ability to work together despite each men having differences of opinion. The GM has ALWAYS been the boss of the HC except the times one man had both titles and that was when disaster struck. This nonsense of KW must do what MOS wants for the kumbaya of the front office is just a cop out.

For sure he is. However, that is exactly the problem I am pointing out. KW should not be in complete lockstep with his HC. IF Walters is to do his job properly then he MUST make the final decision, and not necessarily be a yes man for his coach.

Yeah, that just isn't how football in this day and age works. KW stated in I believe the season-ending presser, or the one for the extensions, that the nature of the working relationship between him and Mos is not one is the boss. He said it used to be a lot of tug of war over every single move, and that it's closer to being on the same page now. But he also picked his battles. If you look back at the past 30+ years of this team, the number of times the GM was the HC's boss is few and far between. It's about as many seasons as the GM was the HCs errand boy. And most of those outliers went or ended very poorly for us.

You don't think that Osh is in Walters ear continually.....lol....don't be so naive....It looks to me sometimes that they've been together so long they work on on one brain

Walters signs players not Osh. If an over the hill vet is re-signed that is on the GM. PERIOD. All this nonsense that Osh brings back guys, and it's not true. He may lobby his GM, but any GM who does his job properly should recognize when a coach is being too loyal then veto. I'm sorry if that hurts the OSH bash train, but the coach cannot be blamed for roster movement in the offseason. But..but...but...the GM needs to respect the coaches wishes. No...no he doesn't.

Pot meet kettle.

Yeah this is where I'm at. Wilson was really good at one point, but given a lengthy injury history and his age it's the perfect spot to move on and go younger at.

History is on your side

Keeping Kyrie smacks of the ol Thomas routine....'hanging on way too long' when the best before date has come and gone....Why do we do it??? partly because Osh likes the old vets and is partial to keeping them when it's prudent to part ways...Having said that I liked the Bryant signing because I believe he still has lots of game left....Just can't say the same for Wilson....

Honestly wouldn't rate a single Canadian OL about to hit free agency as starter quality. Woodmansey can't snap consistently enough to play centre and can't block well enough to be good at guard. He's the only one approaching being a good CFL player at this point in their careers. It's pure desperation and injuries that keep some of these guys playing. If I was running a team I'd start with the idea I probably have to play 4 American OL to have a strong offense and if you can find Canadians to take those spots it's a bonus. Way more options that don't harm your ability to win to play Canadians at receiver/RB or on D than locking in OL spots these days. I'm hopeful we're bringing up more American OL who aren't just tackles.