GCn20

You keep saying that Osh needs to have a better eye for talent in camp. This league is small and opposing GMs are very aware and have scouted many of the same players we have. I cannot think of a single player we cut in camp that went on to be anything in this league. Teams are signing other teams cuts all the time. Our cuts have done exactly zero anywhere. That leads me to believe that it isn;t Osh's eye for talent that is the problem, it is our recruiters. If we were cutting studs some at least would turn up somewhere else. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ZERO DEPTH. Over a 3 year span with Rigmaiden our scouting suddenly ratcheted up and we were a very deep club. He left it went back to poop again. We aren't bringing in enough talent at every position group. PERIOD. The only place we seem to be having some real good fortune is at DB. I am on record many times saying coaching lost us that Grey Cup, both roster composition but especially game plan. However, that was not the discussion whatsoever. Telling me how a carburetor works when we are talking about mufflers doesn't add anything. We all know what MOS weaknesses are. Where we disagree is how that impacts our talent level. Like I've stated, name one good player who left town because of roster composition. Look, I stated last week that I thought we should clean house. I am not defending OSH. What I am trying to point out is that anyone thinking we had a roster that could legit compete for a Grey Cup last year is smoking crack. We NEED more talent, and to be clear we also need our coach to use it properly, I think that's a pretty fair statement.

I agree that in years past we had ample opportunity to be better at giving young guys playing time. We cruised for many years easily winning our division. Could have still done so and played the youngsters more. However, I find this argument to be completely without merit this year. This year we struggled early and were fighting for a playoff spot right to the last week. We couldn't roll the dice on rookies or we may have missed the playoffs in a GC hosting year. We've heard lots about Smith/Shay not playing. Haven't heard much about anyone else. Our LBers actually played well this year. We should have sat them and played rookies in a year where one more loss and we are out of the playoffs? C'mon. That's not a valid thought process. In the past, yes, this year nope. Whether you like it or not the ALs game was an exhibition game. Both teams sat a great deal of starters. Did both teams play to win? Certainly. Was the talent level of those competing the highest level. Nope. I think the Bombers have done a real good job developing NAT talent. Not sure what you are seeing that suggests otherwise? Some hit and some miss, and none of it was due to playing time or lack thereof. Who are these NAT talents that we failed to develop and went somewhere else and found success? Name one. We've seen a few fringe NAT guys leave after their first contract due to playing time, but these aren't difference maker players. The other guys we've lost it's been solely about the benjamins. We wouldn't pay them what others were willing to do so. This fabrication that we lose good NATs for lack of playing time in year one is nonsense. Playing time in year one literally doesn't hurt their CFL careers whatsoever. They sign 3 year deals at a stipulated salary. Years 2 and 3 are where they need to be playing and we have been very good about getting anyone who is starting quality their playing time by the time they hit FA. Dobson and Ford for instance, our big FA losses last year barely saw the field in their rookie years. They still parlayed their successful first contracts into big money second contracts.

I am not sure he was entirely talking about NATs, although, the Bombers have been VERY good at retaining our top talent IMPs so I can't imagine that's what he meant. We have let a lot of IMP guys walk after their rookie contracts expire but I am yet to see a single one of them make a difference elsewhere. Fact of the matter is that NAT draft pick retention is always going to be a little more difficult because they had no choice where they were going to play to start with. You are always going to lose some after their rookie contract. However, its a GMs job to present them with a number that will make them stay. Ford there was no way he was staying, but over the years we have let some very good NATs walk in FA because we didn't want to pay.

Name the players who have left here after their first contract? I'm not arguing, just can't think of too many. Dobson? Was he first or 2nd contract? I agree that we have lost some very key players over the past several years to money tho. Our SMS may need a little reconfiguring for sure. I mean Thomas and Kolanowski aren't big budget items so the example is a little poor. However, we have allocated some heavy salary to BO, ZC, and WJ that might have been money better spent elsewhere.

That has been a revelation to me as well. From starting and using too many NATs to we never game them a chance all in the span of a month. My head is spinning.

Again...who are the guys who left town only to have enormous success after being "held back" here. Name just one. That was the claim being made. Could we split hairs on whether a guy like Rosary should have gotten more reps....I suppose....but he was a fringe talent then and would be a fringe guy now if he stuck. I mean really we are clamoring for MOS to play guys with very little upside in their game. BTW, Corcoran played because Clercius was a little knicked up. Could we have gotten more reps for Shay/Smith? Maybe. However, our record wasn't very conducive to rolling the dice with unproven rookies.

JT playing was not due to ratio.

I think if you get so much NFL time in after your draft year that the rookie amounts are null and void now? Thought I read that, maybe someone can confirm? Sorry if that's all in my head. I'm OK with that so long as our BO saving go directly to signing a top notch OL. If we can get an allstar calibre OL for the Brady savings we can easily replace most of Brady's production for a regular RB salary. The net gain in us getting a stud OL is far greater than the 300 yards more from scrimmage we will get from Brady. Fair point.

I don't think we have to fire him. He's on a year to year contract I believe. We can let him go gracefully by letting his contract simply expire.

Well don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your BOLO rant. He wasn't competing for reps against Clercius or Corcoran. If he was you might have a point but he wasn't so your point is ridiculous. BOLO had to unseat a still in his prime Wolitarsky or Nic Demski. He could do neither because he wasn't good enough. He was given ample reps to demonstrate his potential. FULL STOP. The fact he has gone elsewhere and been just as ineffective proves that. I mean good gravy you say I have my head up my arse defending OSH, but that's not true, I just would like for a single one of the examples used against him to make a lick of sense. Is that too much to ask? FACT: In 2022, BOLO had more targets with Winnipeg than his first year in Hamilton and almost as much as this year. He put up a whopping 233 yards for those targets. FACT: In the two years since leaving here he has averaged 335 yards per season seeing almost full time receiving duty. Yea, he's the one that got away all right. Answer me this, which of our old vets in Wolitarsky or Demski would you have sat down for that outstanding level of production? Or are you suggesting we should have flipped an IMP receiving spot to NAT and sat down one of Lawler/Schoen/Bailey? I mean seriously look at that receiving corps. BOLO didn't stand a chance of making that roster as a starter because it was an elite receiving crew....but hey MOS is the bad guy for dressing his best receivers I guess. If it sounds like I'm mocking your example, I am. You could have picked from so many and you chose literally the one guy that we MOS did give chances too and didn't seize the opportunity.

BOLO? That's the guy you want to say that we held back? Have you looked at his performance since he left here? We had Americans in the way? No....we had Americans that were better and gave us a better chance of winning. You guys criticize Osh for 8-9 NAT starters but want every position a NAT backs up for them to start over an IMP. Makes no sense. Our high drafted guys were Shay and Smith, what leads you to believe they were better than any of our starting LBers? Show your work.

It is a tiny sample size in what was an exhibition game. Further to that, he wasn't high end by any stretch of the imagination. However, he did show nicely for a rookie. Who would you have taken out to put him in? What makes you believe he constituted any kind of upgrade? That's what we are talking about here. He was rostered all season, so what we are talking about is starting reps. I didn't see anything that led me to believe he deserved starting reps all season.

Who are these high end rookies not playing? Name one. Name a guy that's sitting on our depth chart now or formerly that has been good here or elsewhere.. ONE just ONE.

You can put it on Osh if you like, but the conversation is about NAT players. Who are the stud NATs we haven't been playing? For crissakes, if there were any and I mean ANY stud NATs sitting on our depth chart does anyone here honestly believe OSH wouldn't play them? The guy would start 24 NATs if he could. He was nicked up. He could've played but Osh decided to sit him. Isn't that what you criticized him ad nauseum for not doing before? Pick a lane.

I think that our recruitment in general has been very poor over the past several years. I think the only period of time we saw good recruitment with this regime was when Rigmaiden was here. Other than that not a whole lot. Look at our depth. It's pathetic.

THIS Reminds me of the dark days of our receiving corps when we were pretending Rory Kohlert was a legit receiver. Back then the Bombers had an excuse,....years of poor GMing. Hmmmm.....

Our receiving corps was as weak an any of the crap groups I can remember over the past 40 years. It really can't be overstated how much help we need there. With all due respect to Nic Demski he should not be a 1 receiver. We need to slap the guys who recruit and/or sign them.

Totally agree. You can make exceptions if you get a real good deal on a QB or something but if you have a top 3 QB salary in the league you shouldn't be paying a premium at RB. 850k in combined salary for the guys standing behind salary is a recipe for a lot weakness, or lack of depth elsewhere. We've seen it. The proof is in the pudding. The guys that are clamoring for BO saying we are nothing without him are ignoring the fact that our overall offence has sucked since the Collaros/BO mega contracts were signed. BO is an awesome RB, but he was paid almost double what the guy who lead the league in rushing this year made. We obviously can get his production or close to it for a fraction of the price. Also, and this is just a personal peeve and has no bearing on whether we should retain him or not, I really don't like that he claims to bleed blue but holds a gun to our head every time his contract expires. He totally has the right to do that, but I just don't like how he puts it out there in the media etc.

I don't care what Osh told him. Walters wears the GM title not Osh. If a RB wants 250k per year, it's up to the GM to go back to the coach and say we couldn't get a reasonable deal done, let's move to plan B. You don't blow your brains out on albatross contracts just because the coach really would like a guy back. That's nonsense.

Osh didn't negotiate albatross contracts for BO, ZC, and WJ. Let's pretend that Osh sounded his fist for those 3 guys, he didnt neg those contracts or make the final call. There is tons to criticize Osh about, ridiculous contract extension amounts aren't one of them

Hogan has to be toasted for sure and Walters has to show up for work this offseason. I strongly feel we should have fired Walters, both to change the dynamic of the GM/HC and because he oversaw the biggest bleed off of talent i can remember in a 3 year span. That being said I am a forgiving man if 2015-2019 Walters reappears I hate our salary structure over the past few years and hope we remedy that by dumping some vast overpays we have. BO, WJ, and ZC to be particular. Gonna get a lot of hate for this but I hate the BO contract and I think our team has seen a vast decline since the BO and ZC numbers skyrocketed. We cant dump Zach's contract so I think a very unpopular moving on from BO is in order.

It has become apparent that by retaining Walters that Miller may be our biggest problem football operations wise.

Hardrick and Dobson leaving are 100% on the GM. Same as Lawler. If anyone thinks that any coach didn't want 3 all stars retained they are huffing paint fumes. KW manages the money and that is the reason all 3 left. How in god's green earth is that on O'Shea? The reason they are leaving is because they were offered big money and we chose not to match it up. Being offered big money means you got played. I am now realizing you were probably being sarcastic.

Yea....I don't particularly see a rookie draft pick not getting many reps as a bad thing necessarily. Some teams do and some teams don't and I am just fine with a slow roll out if that is what a coach chooses. We have no idea whether Shay or Smith would have helped or hindered us by getting regular reps, and I don't see our LBing corps as a particular area of weakness where we had to roll the dice and find out. If the mafia are all back this year, I would hope that it is after Wade Miller has driven home that their jobs depend on better job performance this year.

Didn't necessarily have to can him, but he absolutely had to make the tough calls and let MOS know the pecking order. Exactly. Sometimes the GM has to say, Mike I don't agree with you and at the end of the day this is my call to make. MOS is a professional, I highly doubt he expected to win every argument. Lets just say that for every flaw that certain players showed and were overlooked by MOS, Walters ignored the flaws that were quite apparent with MOS. There was no bottom line.