Onyenegecha

I wholeheartily agree. I really hope that when the time comes to hire a GM, they keep in mind that it wasn't the concepts that Mack tried to instill that failed, it was his execution and his stubborn refusal to budge from his original plan that failed. Let's hope they don't do the "Let's hire a guy who is the complete opposite of Mack", because the last time they did that, Reinebold replaced Cal Murphy. I don't know that he was that stubborn so much as he just knew he could find talent without having to overpay. To me the biggest flaw in Macks time as GM was not getting a quality head coach in there who would hire a quality coaching staff. The two biggest things that determine success in the CFL are quarterbacking and coaching. I wonder what might have been with our quarterbacks with different coaching... guess we'll see glimpses of that starting now. They did appear more effective with Lapo around though his ultra conservative style didn't do the team any favours in terms of wins. Maybe stubborn wasn't the right word, but it was the first one that came to mind. I think inflexible is more accurate to what I was trying to say, and it may not have been Mack-specific but a general state of the team. I don't doubt that his philosophy was to bring in young players who are better athletes that he can find, then coach them up. Because you can't coach athleticism. But if that's the GM's philosophy, then someone within the franchise has to find the right way to supplement that. If we're bringing in raw athletes who need to learn the Canadian game, as opposed to CFL vets who don't have the 40 time or the explosiveness of a new recruit, why do we not have someone dedicated to closing that learning gap faster? And we're seeing problems with that disconnect now. From top to bottom, all successful teams, regardless of sport, have one vision, one central philosophy that all other areas branch off from. If young, cheap and new is the way we were going, we got the benefits of young and cheap, but didn't do enough to help offset the downsides of young and new.

There's being positive, then there's suggesting that your quality control coach may or may not be psychic, which is not too far from the stance that he took. Their offensive quality control coach was either a certified genius or a wizard for being able to figure out that Doug Berry offences tend to pass on second and long. Genius or wizard - one of the two.

This. If there was ANY year where a team goes 5-13 and makes the playoffs, it's this one.

I wholeheartily agree. I really hope that when the time comes to hire a GM, they keep in mind that it wasn't the concepts that Mack tried to instill that failed, it was his execution and his stubborn refusal to budge from his original plan that failed. Let's hope they don't do the "Let's hire a guy who is the complete opposite of Mack", because the last time they did that, Reinebold replaced Cal Murphy.

I'm suggesting that it was, at the very least, defensible. And I would argue that he did take chances at the QB spot. He signed Steven Jyles and Buck Pierce in free agency, and brought in 9 QBs during his tenure. And if putting all of your eggs in the Buck Pierce basket when your job is on the line isn't taking a risk, I don't know what is. You can fault him for his decision making, but he certainly was not a guy who "never took a chance". The one point about Mack I will bring up is this: he may have already found a solution to the QB problem. It may have been either Elliott or Brink, it could have possibly been Buck, it may yet be Goltz or Hall. But as long as you have an offensive line where not one player on the line is a top-3 player at his position, and the best IMPORT RIGHT TACKLE you can find is Shannon Effing Boatman, it doesn't matter how many free agent quarterbacks you do or don't trade for.

Glad you enjoyed it, I worked hard on it and its late. We agree he made up his mind. That his decision was preordained and had nothing to do with how Hervey and Mack approached the situation, not so much. Ultimately though, I'll grant you its speculation (on both sides of the argument.) It is speculation. We don't know but the Mack apologists here always are quick to defend the fact that Mack couldn't get Reilly like they absolutely 100% know the facts when they don't. Both sides are speculating. No one, on either side of the argument has 100% of the facts. What I'm asking is this: "What if we gave traded down four spots in the CFL draft, where four spots is the difference between Jabar Westerman and Ameet Pall or Henoc Muamba and Nate Coehoorn, to get a guy who: - has 55 career completions (btw, Justin Goltz has 45 completions in 2013) - is a pending free agent and has the option to go to the highest bidder in 14 days - oh and by the way, you can't talk to him at all until we finalize this deal If you were comfortable with that risk, more power to you. I wouldn't be. I'm also not a CFL GM. Even if the last point is pure speculation, the first two facts are enough to scare me off. Another reason I would hesitate on pulling the trigger: Player A: 110-181, 1,193 yards, 6 TD, 8 INT, 39 car, 204 yds, 2 TD Player B: 53-74, 684 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 34 car, 122 yds, 2 TD Player C: 66-108, 854 yards, 2 TD, 5 INT, 4 car, 14 yds, 0 TD Player D: 45-78, 476 yards, 2TD, 2 INT, 23 car, 84 yds, 4 TD Player B of course is Mike Reilly's 2012 stats. Player A? Stefan LeFors in 2007. Player D is Justin Goltz in 2013, and Player C, just for kicks, is apparently the new low-standard, The Patron Saint of Bad Quarterbacking, 2013 Buck Pierce. Are his numbers the best of the four? I'd say so. But he didn't put up monster numbers either, and we've seen first hand in Winnipeg what happens when you put a backup QB from a good system into an awful offensive system (that either features Brock Ralph running the jet or Shannon Boatman running after the DE that he let fly by him). To each their own, but he wasn't exactly a slam dunk and he wouldn't even be under contract in 14 days. Not only would Mack be trading for an unproven commodity, but one that has the option to leave in two weeks. Was it the right move to pass on him? Who knows, but it most certainly is a defensible one.

Our stadium is gorgeous. Just positively gorgeous. Because if I have to watch Buck, Justin and Max compete to see who's the least-worst QB among the three, at least I can do it in the nicest stadium in the country.

Mack is responsible for the product on the field. We are 1-6 due very largely to Mack's decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong for not giving up potential NI assets for the opportunity to just talk to a guy who was free to join any team he wanted to within a week of that deal.

I don't know how accurate this report is, but this guy is on TSN 1290 right now and holy hell: According to him, the Riders are the best at everything in the history of the world ever. He's like Bizarro Friesen.

Reilly, Pierce, Goltz, Hall, hell Ray, Lulay, Durant, Khari, Dunigan, Jacobs: it doesn't matter. No one is passing for 500 yards so long as Shannon Boatman is providing less resistance than the revolving door at Ikea. At least I have to stutter step my way through that thing.

If we're going to cherry-pick facts about trades that moved quarterbacks to teams other than Winnipeg in an effort to slam Mack, why aren't we ripping him for not holding on to Jyles for one more year and trading him, a first-round pick and Justin Palardy to Edmonton for Ricky Ray? I mean, why hit singles when you can nail the grand slam of revisionist history? A few tweaks here, a forgotten fact there, and Ricky Ray should be lofting corner routes to Greg Carr, who also would still be here putting up all-star numbers if it wasn't for Mack. Damn you Joe Mack.

To add to this, Buck played against 2-4 Montreal twice and 1-5 Hamilton, while Goltz played against 4-2 BC and 5-1 Calgary.

Absolutely you can. And then we get on the merry-go-round of comparing situationals, which is I think what you were trying to avoid by using the advanced stats. I agree Buck's 2nd half was the worst half played, but the "statistically, outside of these select moments" argument opens things up for more argument than needed. I think there's enough meat on the stat bones that you can make the Goltz > Buck argument an open-and-shut case.

I picked it to remind me not to get too excited about new players. I'm overly optimistic at times, and I remember the collective orgasm at OB after he had two pass knockdowns or something relatively insignificant. It was a coin flip between Chijoke and Bloi-Dei.

But Goltz has a higher "ridiculous touchdown celebration" rating, so it kind of evens out.

I love that these stats are available and I think something like this is definitely interesting and useful, and I think everyone would agree that you're one of the most respected and intelligent posters on this forum (including your time on OB). One suggestion I would have for you is that there are two ways to look at stats: one way is to analyze the stats and draw a conclusion from them, another way is to have a preconceived conclusion and cherry pick stats that help support that conclusion. I would suggest that the former is much more useful than the latter. I think (I think, I don't know, as I haven't looked at the stats myself) that there is more than enough information available to come to the conclusion that Buck has played worse than Goltz. At the very least, it's probably (emphasize probably) a saw-off with both guys being equally horrific. But when you throw in an addendum like this while not mentioning Goltz' 2nd half against the Lions, which may have been statistically the worst two quarters any Bomber QB has played this year, or that Goltz ran up some passing yards in garbage time against the Argos in week 5, it can come across as stat cherry-picking, as opposed to a solid conclusion. (That being said, Goltz was definitely handcuffed by poor filed position against BC. I wonder how these stats would look if we were able to eliminate any drives that stated inside our own 10 yard line, as offensive starts that deep in your own end could serverely affect the playcalling) Again, I think you're on the right path, and by no means am I arguing that Buck is better, and I really appreciate the work done here. I would be interested in looking at these stats myself if they're readily available. This was just some food for thought.

We'll be on pace to finish 5-13 AND host the Eastern Semi. Which would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

I would be afraid that this would backfire like the Marshall/Miller fiasco. Unless you hire an offensive guy as the HC who doesn't know anything about defense and he defers everything on defense to Burke, like deciding who starts at MLB.

Not to be a smartass, but I'd argue the 1998 Stamps QB Trio of Garcia/Dickenson/Burris might be a tad better. Add Flutie before that, and now Tate and possibly BLM and then I think about the Tee Martins and Russ Michnas and Ryan Dinwiddies and Michael Bishops and oh God I think I'm gonna cry...

I'm Shankman*, and everyone here needs to stay on topic. *I'm not really Shankman, thank God.

Sadly, that is where this otherwise fine plan completely falls apart.

Congratulations to the Ticats D, who are now 2 for 2 for Offensive Player of the Week awards.

The only way Rod Black could have fellated the Riders any more during that game is if they fielded an offence with 12 Sam Gigueres.