Onyenegecha

While I respect the spirit of your position, that was, without question, the most laughable example of an Appeal to Authority that I've ever seen. Check this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority As the kids say, "logic fail." Except, in this specific case (the one where Wade Miller makes football-ops decisions) it isn't a logic fail because he IS a subject matter expert, being a former football player. He's not Feterik or Buchko, where someone is "deferring to the boss because he's the boss". Miller is someone, based on his prior experience, who is capable of making that decision and just happens to be the boss, and not the other way around. It's the GMs job to choose the coach. If the HC is picked by Miller instead I may not agree with the optics, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'll disagree with the choice. Not to sidetrack things guys but you're incorrect -- it was still an appeal to authority, and therefore, a logical fallacy. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert (Here I would agree, Miller is an expert on the CFL, at least more than any of us) cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter (This is debatable) any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning. (THIS is where "Miller is an expert so do what he says" is a logical fallacy -- see below) In the context of deductive arguments ..... authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts. Error, bias, or dishonesty. See how simply deferring to Miller outright without being objective isn't wise, especially the bias area? For Pete's sake, we just lived through 3 years of In Mack We Trust -- because he was with the Bombers in our glory yeas, been in pro football for 25, and has a ring in the NFL, but still did a TERRIBLE job --- and now you're suggesting we blindly switch to In Miller We Trust? I say we need higher standards moving forward. If trusting the decision purely because Miller the CEO made it, I would agree. But I'm not sure that's why people wouldn't necessarily disagree with him. I'm definitely not suggesting IMWT2, but what I am suggesting is that we shouldn't go in the outright opposite direction, where the team flips and 180s from the previous regime just for the sake of it. Because that's how we got Reinbold as our post-Cal face of the franchise. Is Khari Jones the right choice? I'm not qualified to make that decision. But Miller is. Does that mean he will make the right decision? Not necessarily, but deferring to him isn't a logical fallacy because he IS a subject matter expert. I get what you're saying, in that you shouldn't trust the boss just because he's the boss. But I don't trust this decision to the CEO, I trust this decision to a career CFLer. Bottom line is they should get the BEST guy, regardless of optics. While everyone (myself included) fears they'll get an unqualified guy just cause the candidate has friends in high places, I equally fear they'll write off qualified guys because of the optics and to appease a sometimes unpleasable fan base. Either way, semantics. I just know that if Buchko hired the HC I'd be furious, but if Miller does, I'm okay with it.

While I respect the spirit of your position, that was, without question, the most laughable example of an Appeal to Authority that I've ever seen. Check this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority As the kids say, "logic fail." Except, in this specific case (the one where Wade Miller makes football-ops decisions) it isn't a logic fail because he IS a subject matter expert, being a former football player. He's not Feterik or Buchko, where someone is "deferring to the boss because he's the boss". Miller is someone, based on his prior experience, who is capable of making that decision and just happens to be the boss, and not the other way around. It's the GMs job to choose the coach. If the HC is picked by Miller instead I may not agree with the optics, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'll disagree with the choice.

I love that you rip him for this line while also ripping him for throwing guys under the bus. but doesn't that show just how stupid Burke is? One minute he's pumping guys tires like crazy the next he's flat out saying they suck. Burke has no clue and all he's done since Joe Mack was fired is talk about how there's not enough talent here while doing nothing to make the talent that is there better. He's been making excuses to try and save his own skin for so long I'm sick and tired of it and his loser attitude needs to GTFO as soon as possible. Then rip him for one or the other. There's enough of a body of work to show he doesn't deserve to hold on to the HC job. When you rip him for zigging and then rip him for zagging it looks like unsubstantiated hate. Burke has lost enough battles that he doesn't need to be put into a no-win situation to suggest that he be fired. Also, it isn't one minute he's doing one thing and the next he's doing another. You're comparing the quotes from when the Bombers were an 0-0 team tied for first in the east with a healthy Buck Pierce vs. a quote from after a 37-7 loss that cemented the worst record in franchise history. Yeah, of course his thoughts on the state of the team are gonna be different. Or should we all start judging each other for things we said in the past about the Bombers? Because there's some opinions from some people here who look down on Burke that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, myself included (IMWT, Ray is old and overrated, et al.).

I love that you rip him for this line while also ripping him for throwing guys under the bus.

But you'd take Sheets? Real life douchebag vs. locker room / on-field douchebag. I would argue the locker room / on-field one would be worse. Wait, which one is which? Cause they've both been asshats inside a stadium. Either way, you couldn't really go wrong with any of the three.

But you'd take Sheets?

I gave this a "like" but I also had to say - well done. "I see Buck people".... "They called me Mr. Glass..."

Buck Pierce beating the Riders in Regina in the Western Semi would make the 2013 season the equivalent of an M. Night Shyamalan picture: awful beginning and middle leads to a crazy satisfying end that no one saw coming. But ultimately, the thing as a whole was still shitty.

Coaches are so bad they can't even make their players aware of their responsibilities if they have to fill in in case of an injury... and we wonder why this team sucks? So your expectation of the coaching staff is to make sure that Brandon Stewart, who never practiced at the nickel knew every possible passing scenario the instant Dunn went down? The same Brandon Stewart who got two objectionable conduct penalties on one play?

This is why Harris is such a slam dunk to go after. Replacing him should he not work out for any reason is so much easier an issue to deal with.

Wholeheartedly agree. The best scenario would be to have a solid import (Will Ford at worst) sharing the backfield. Makes him especially dangerous when you don't know which back is getting it, or if Harris is flaring out for a swing pass. Someone else said it earlier, but if he can be a better Andre Durie for us, he's worth the price tag,

Well yeah, that goes without saying. But the Bombers wouldn't be on the hook salary wise if he didn't work out, and RB is one of the easiest positions to backfill with an I if he didn't work out. BTW, the difference between "lights out" and "meh" is apparently 10.5 yards and 10.1 yards receiving a game, with rush/rec averages down 1.1 and 1.2 yards per, and a difference of one less touchdown every ten games. On a team averaging 30 yards less in rushing and 53 yards less in passing per game vs 2012. So yeah, he's completely fallen off a cliff talent-wise. umm, 4.8 yards per rush is lousy in the CFL in the current era and yeah 1.1 yards per rush is a pretty decrease in production percentage wise when you're only talking 5-6 yard averages.... More importantly, it's not his stats that i look at, it's actualyl watching him, he doesn't look near as explosive. The point is his decline, when factored against the decline of the entire BC offence, is not as steep. Which spoke to his unhappiness in BC and why his name is even up for discussion in FA. And he's the only player this season on pace to have 1000 rush/500 rec yards. If he rushes for 1000 this year, him and Cornish will be the third and fourth Canadians to do it more than once. Worst case scenario, we pay him a ton of money, he doesn't work out (a la Sean Millington), and we replace him with an I. Best case scenario, we have a ratio breaker for the next half-decade who consistently churns out 900/400 for us while being a matchup nightmare when paired up with our mobile starting QB.

Well yeah, that goes without saying. But the Bombers wouldn't be on the hook salary wise if he didn't work out, and RB is one of the easiest positions to backfill with an I if he didn't work out. BTW, the difference between "lights out" and "meh" is apparently 10.5 yards and 10.1 yards receiving a game, with rush/rec averages down 1.1 and 1.2 yards per, and a difference of one less touchdown every ten games. On a team averaging 30 yards less in rushing and 53 yards less in passing per game vs 2012. So yeah, he's completely fallen off a cliff talent-wise.

I don't think the shelf life of RBs should even be an issue. We aren't signing him to a 10 year guaranteed contract. I think you absolutely go after Harris. And you pay him the top dollar he commands. After QB, he should absolutely be our #1 target if he makes it to free agency. And I think he's a solid level below Cornish. In fact, I think the gap between him and Durie is smaller than the gap between him and Cornish. That doesn't mean he's not an elite-level NI talent. And we need those. The best offences in the CFL the last half-decade all feature at least one solid receiving threat out of the backfield, and he fills that role quite well.

The only scenario where I would be happy with Barker as GM is if Eric Tillman replaced him in Toronto and we signed Steven Jyles and Grant Shaw...

If Ottawa takes Max Hall, we get to protect two more NIs, which means our 7th and 8th best NIs stay with the team. Up to you decide whether or not that's a good thing.

Of course I would rather have the second pick over the third. But I don't want to move up one spot in the 2014 draft so badly that I'll be actively hoping the team goes 0-2. That was the point of my original post.

I'd prefer the win. I get what you're saying, but it's on management to make that pick work, regardless of if it's a 2nd or 3rd overall. 2nd overall picks historically have not done any better or any worse as a collective than 3rd overall picks. Well managed teams maximize picks, poorly run teams squander them. IMHO, there's always a sense to winning a game. That's why they go out on the field. I'm a fan first, second and third, and I'll let the one who collect a salary from the WFC worry about things like draft position. The heart always overrules the mind when it comes to the Bombers for me. Your reasoning for not wanting them to win makes 100% sense. I would rather they win today, even if it gets the third pick, and worry about the 2014 draft when it comes. Cause solid management drafts Andy Fantuz 3rd overall, and shitty management drafts Daaron McField 2nd overall.

Three if we could get Andy Mulumba up here as well. Or, to be fair, three if we had drafted Mike Edem.

I'm sure I know what to root for: a Winnipeg sweep tonight. Here we go Bombers and Go Jets Go!

Look at his sideburns, he looks like a girl. Now Johnny Unitas, THERE'S a haircut you could set your watch by!

Yeah, that's totally not what he said. But I guess whatever helps the narrative that Burke is awful at everything.

Etienne hasn't exactly done anything in three seasons to dispute his original opinion of him. And this is coming from a guy who was a big fan of the choice and is still a fan of the player. He also hasn't had a lot of opportunities to do anything given the problems surrounding the team. I mean a player who was picked and the management came right out and said he's a project shouldn't be judged by his first couple years, and it did appear that there were some glimpses of a good player in there at times this year. He certainly has shown glimpses, but I think even less has been expected of Kohlert and he's come through. I still think given the right opportunities than JE can be a fantastic player, but, whether it's his fault or not, this is still a results-oriented business. He hasn't been given a legitimate shot to succeed. His past skillset suggests he just needs room to grow and the right support system around him. He has shown glimpses of not just competence, but excellence. Unfortunately, the results just haven't went his way. This reasoning could be used to defend Jade Etienne. It could also be used to defend Tim Burke.

Etienne hasn't exactly done anything in three seasons to dispute his original opinion of him. And this is coming from a guy who was a big fan of the choice and is still a fan of the player.

I'm sure we're all a little edgy given that the team blows. But yeah, you're right. I'm definitely no happier than anyone else about this awful, awful, awful football team. And the fact that we still have as many people discussing this sad-sack excuse of a team speaks to all of us and our loyalty (some may say misplaced loyalty) to the B&G. Whatever side we land fall on in the Mack debate, the Burke debate, the cut Elliott debate, we should all remember that fundamentally, we're all here for the same reason: we're all huge Bomber fans, and we all hate Shankman.