Sard

You didn't answer the actual question... you have yet to present any reasonable alternatives from the time when Walters and O'Shea were hired, and you haven't presented any possible options if we were in the same situation now. Basically, you're saying the Bombers did it wrong and continue to do it wrong without offering any suggestions on how they may have done it right, other than vague statements about "hiring people with experience", yet you can't identify a single, viable option.

Sounded like it may have had to do with having a new kid. He made a comment about being tired at the start of the season (ie. not getting much sleep with a new baby in the house). I do think that he also had some sort of nagging injury going on through his slump... though his punting looked ok, it seemed like he was wincing in pain on almost every kick through that time.

All I'm saying is that there is no magic formula to choosing the HC who will take the team to the Cup and win it. Hiring experience vs. hiring a new, up and comer doesn't really matter because neither one is a guarantee. You're suggesting that we should have hired experienced guys like Daley, Richie and Murphy, but how many cups did that get us? It's also ridiculous to assert that there's no point in taking a shot on a rookie. By that logic, you should only ever bring in experienced players as well. <sarcasm>Why would any team ever want to put a rookie player on the field?</sarcasm> At some point, someone has to take that shot on the rookie and live through any growing pains. We've done that, and I'm happy that we did. Even in MOS' first 2 years we struggled, and didn't have a very good record, but it was fun to be at the games and watch the team play.

You're absolutely right that it's a ridiculous comparison. That was my point (should have added the <sarcasm> tag. To say that hiring a "proven winner" would have been the answer is just as ridiculous. Someone here suggested Tom Higgins should have been hired over O'Shea, but as proven in his last tenure as HC, it didn't work out. Has the Bombers hired an experienced coach, and it hadn't worked out, everyone on here who is saying O'Shea was the wrong choice would be saying that we shouldn't have hired an old retread who was past his prime, even if he had proven to be successful in the past. Some of you just can be pleased, and unless the Bombers go 18-0 in a season, and shutout their opponents in every game, you won't be happy with what's going on here. The Bombers are in an excellent place right now... winning seasons, playoff appearances, entertaining and exciting product on the field, and an excellent culture to boot.

By that argument, BC should have won this year, and last year, and the year before that, Wally is an experienced coach, why isn't he winning it every year?

Well luck for us we have both wins and culture with O'Shea.

Trestman wasn't available when the Bombers were looking, and I'm glad we don't have Chris Jones. I can't stand the guy's attitude or the way he runs his team. Sure they got into the playoffs and got a win... in the East. I'll take O'Shea's culture over Jones' any day of the week. I don't know much about June Jones, so I can't speak to his availability when the Bombers were looking. Glad to see that he's having some success in Hamilton, hopefully that makes the East a stronger division next year.

For all of you who keep saying that we should be hiring experienced, proven winners, I have to ask how that works going forward? If every team used that philosophy, what happens when all of the "proven winners" decide to hang it up? At some point, teams need to bring in rookie coaches that they think can develop into "proven winners". Have all of the decisions made by the Bombers over the past 27 years been good ones? Definitely not, but you can't hang all of those past poor decisions on the current group. Wade Miller, Kyle Walters, and Mike O'Shea have only been in their current positions for 4 years, and all of them were new to the positions when they started. There have been some growing pains, but the team has been consistently trending up in all aspects since they started. Game day experience has improved, and the team is exciting to watch (which speaks to the players that have been brought in as well as how they've been coached to play). Not everything they have done has been perfect, but no team has been perfect in their decision making. We take the good with the bad, and for my money, the good in the past few years has by far outweighed the bad.

Do you have a list of these proven winners who are available for the Bombers to hire? It's easy to say "go out an hire Tressman and Popp", but it's another thing entirely to actually be able to get them. You don't actually know who the Bombers pursued when they ended up hiring their current crew. Also, at that time, the club was in a bad place and honestly, I don't think top tier talent was interested in joining that circus at that time. The level of impatience that you are showing is exactly what got us to be that circus, and exactly why we couldn't attract top talent (coaches or players). The current crew has brought a huge amount of respectability back to the franchise to the point where people what to be here, so have patience and good things will come... ...Or keep griping about what's been done in the past and continue to be upset with the team. I for one am happy with where the team is trending.

My point is, just because we aren't winning the cup, if the product on the field is entertaining, and we are winning more than we are losing, there's no reason to blow it up. Consistency is key, and constantly changing up the management and coaching staff has proven to provide more losing records than winning ones. The current regime may be taking longer to get things rolling at the playoff level than Toronto did, but I honestly feel that we are built for a long term run of winning seasons and consistent playoff appearances which will eventually pay off.

At the end of the day, football is an entertainment business. Throughout the season, I was thoroughly entertained by the Bombers. I think there were maybe 2 games this season where I felt that I didn't get my money's worth (and although they lost in the WSF, it was an entertaining game). I want nothing more than to have the Bombers win a cup, but at the end of the day as a season ticket holder, I put more value on being entertained week in and week out rather than whether they have won a playoff game or not.

I thought Don Cherry said it first... but I could be mistaken.

To both of these points, I agree, and at the end of the day all I'm looking for is consistency... especially within the same game. If they are going to call it dead (counter to what the rules say), I'm fine with that as long as they do it every time.

The part I really don't understand is why they blow the play dead sometimes and at other times they allow the offence to have a free play. It seems to be extremely random. Earlier in the game, one of the Bombers jumped offside (and didn't touch the OL), and the play was called dead right away. Though the ball ended up being snapped, the flags flew and whistles blew before it was snapped, which I think is why the Bombers (and fans in the stands) were so upset that there was no flag in the 3rd quarter.

Ah sorry, I missed that one.

I believe the play you are referring to was Denmark and Dressler, but there was still over a minute left in the game. Had they been able to score quickly on that drive, there was a chance for an onside kick and a shot for another TD, so at the point when that play happened, the game most definitely was not over.

It wouldn't have mattered because there was a no yards penalty on the play... it was a difference of 10 to 15 yards, but Edmonton was keeping the ball either way.

The thing I find most funny about bae and how much it is used is that it is a Danish word for poop.

Better yet, more recently in the spring of 2017: CBC One…14.5 (Share) 13.8 (Last Spring) 680 CJOB…10.9 11.0 QX 104…9.0 9.0 92.1 CITI…7.4 8.7 103.1 Virgin…8.0 6.7 99.9 Bob…5.9 6.8 Kiss 102.3…4.1 6.8 94.3 The Drive…5.6 4.1 Energy 106…4.7 4.9 Power 97…4.7 3.8 TSN 1290…4.4 3.2 CBC Two…3.6 2.7 CJGV…2.6 1.9 Hot 100.5…1.5 1.6 Pretty much says it all... CJOB has 10.9% of the listening audience while TSN has 4.4%.

Winnipeg Radio Station ratings (Fall of 2016) with % of listeners (2015 in parenthesis). CBC Radio One — 12.3 (15.3) 680 CJOB — 10.8 (10.9) QX 104 — 9.1 (7.4) 103.1 Virgin Radio — 7.0 (9.0) 92.1 CITI — 6.5 (9.4) KiSS 102.3 — 6.0 (4.9) 99.9 BOB FM — 5.7 (6.0) 94.3 The Drive — 5.5 (3.9 as FAB 94.3) Energy 106 — 4.8 (4.5) CBC Radio 2 — 4.2 (4.0) TSN 1290 — 4.1 (3.5) Power 97 — 3.5 (3.1 as 97.5 BIG FM) Jewel 100.5 — 2.9 (2.2) 99.1 Fresh Radio — 1.6 (2.5) Radio-Canada — 0.5 (0.2) NOW Country 104.7 — 0.3 (0.7 as Rhythm 104.7)

680 has a 50,000 Watt transmitter 1290 has a 10,000 Watt transmitter That would equate very roughly to 20 - 25% less coverage (assuming the transmitters are at the same height)

Saw a tweet from Darren earlier saying that they are selling at about 1000 a day, but no details on when that started or where they were at.

It's also typical of Winnipegers to wait until the last minute to make their decision... the forecast right now looks good, but it could get worse. I'm sure there are lots of people waiting for Saturday to see the forecast for the game before making the decision. Looking forward to it either way... it's always a great day for football when you're in the playoffs

Personally, I find the game more interesting to watch from the upper deck. Much easier to watch the plays develop, and you can quickly tell how far a play went. From the lower bowl (at least closer to the field), it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a 5 yard pass and a 35 yard pass. That's my $0.02 on it anyway.