Onyenegecha
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Onyenegecha
-
-
I guess it is easier to be positive about a team that is winning. Can't really pump air n the Bomber's tires when u have 4 flats now can u?
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.
-
the ray of light is that 3 other teams are playing pretty poorley too.
This. If there was ANY year where a team goes 5-13 and makes the playoffs, it's this one.
-
But his intensions -- to slowly and patiently build depth to this Football Club that could set us up as a winner for years to come -- were on the money. Unfortunately, he didn't start with a team the way the other standard bearers had.
I still say the calm, rational approach where you only take a few big chances each year and for the most part trust your own eye for talent and that of the team you assemble below you is the most effective approach. It's kept the Als and the Lions in it for almost every year over the last decade (and more for the Als). Too bad it couldn't have possibly worked here.
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.
-
Mack not doing the deal was defensable. It was understandable. It was risk free. Mack chose to play it safe & not role the dice. But in 3 1/2 years Burke never took a chance. This was the time to do it. To take a risk & perhaps define his time as a GM. He didn't so whatever. Playing it safe ultimately didn't save his job or make the team win.
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.
-
Nice story.
I really didn't think I'd have to add the rest of the line because it was adequately explained...but just for you, 'cause you tell a special story.
"Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal". -- because he had already made up his mind.
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.
-
any to grasp at for the time being?
MB, a cfl experienced offensive couch should be a positive..
any of our draft picks from this season or others possibly coming down the pipe? neg listers?
im pretty tapped out for rainbows n sunshine at this point lol
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.
-
Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?
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.
-
-
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.
- MOBomberFan and johnzo
-
2
-
What should be most alarming about the OP's stats IMO is that those are Goltz's FIRST 2 STARTS IN THE LEAGUE! Whereas Buck is an established veteran. His numbers should be FAR better than what Justin did, or at least marginally better to justify starting a injury riddled 31 yr old over an up and coming 26 yr old. The fact that the numbers favour Justin, or are too close to call definitively, SCREAMS that Buck shouldn't be ahead on the depth chart.
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.
-
You can point to garbage time with Goltz against the Argos (or Stamps) but you can also point to the same thing with Pierce against Hamilton.
I'd say statistically, the worst half by a Bomber QB all season would be Pierce's second half against Montreal in week 1. Despite scoring 33 points in that game, Pierce's second half reads like this: 3 first downs, 6 two and outs. Sure, he scored a touchdown after a huge Jade Etienne catch-and-run, but other than that and a field goal to start the third quarter, he peeled off drives of 4 yards, 0 yards, 8 yards, 4 yards, 8 yards and 2 yards. Six straight two and outs to end the game. Totally unacceptable.
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.
-
^^^ Awesome username. Forgot about that guy.
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.
-
Not mentioned in this analysis is their appearance. Goltz is too "man pretty", so I give the edge to Buck's manlier handsomeness.
But Goltz has a higher "ridiculous touchdown celebration" rating, so it kind of evens out.
-
Figured I'd make this thread since I always point out that "advanced" statistics do NOT favor Buck Pierce when comparing him against other quarterbacks. I'll try and update this weekly just to keep it current especially with Hall playing this week to add another comparison.
What I looked at mostly was % of two and outs, average offense per drive, points per possession, etc. For the sake of continuity, when I tally this stuff up, I counted a turnover prior to a first down being gained as a two and out but a turnover after a first down had been gained was not.
Here's what I came up with:
Week 1
Buck Pierce - 19 possessions, 12 two and outs (63%), 3 turnovers, 2 touchdowns
Average points per possession - 0.94
Average yardage per possession - 16.26 yards (longest 73 yards)
Week 2
Buck Pierce - 18 possessions, 8 two and outs (44%), 3 turnovers, 2 touchdowns
Average points per possession - 1
Average yardage per possession - 20.1 yards (longest 105 yards)
Justin Goltz - 1 possession, 1 two and out, 1 turnover
Average points per possession - 0
Average yardage per possession - 4 (longest 4 yards)
Week 3
Buck Pierce - 15 possessions, 6 two and outs (40%), 3 touchdowns
Average points per possession - 1.2
Average yardage per possession - 22.6 (longest 92 yards)
One thing I will point out, although the stats are what they are ... All 6 of the two and outs in this game were in the second half, where we had 8 possessions. That's horrible second half efficiency. In fact, aside from a 92 yard drive while Hamilton was playing prevent, our net offense in the second half of this game was -7 yards.
Week 4
Buck Pierce - 8 possessions, 5 two and outs (62%), 1 turnover
Average points per possession - 0.75
Average yardage per possession - 20.62 (longest 65 yards)
Justin Goltz - 7 possessions, 2 two and outs (28%), 1 turnover
Average points per possession - 1.28
Average yardage per possession - 29 (longest 64 yards)
Week 5
Justin Goltz - 13 possessions, 6 two and outs (46%), 1 turnover, 3 touchdowns
Average points per possession - 1.61
Average yardage per possession - 25.23 (longest 80 yards)
Week 6
Justin Goltz - 15 possessions, 5 two and outs (33%), 1 turnover, 2 touchdowns
Average points per possession - 1.2
Average yardage per possession - 17.2 (longest 41 yards)
2013 totals to date
Buck Pierce - 60 possessions, 31 two and outs (51.6%), 7 turnovers (11.6%), 7 touchdowns (11.6%)
Average points per possession - 1
Average yardage per possession - 19.58 yards
Justin Goltz - 36 possessions, 14 two and outs (38.8%), 4 turnovers, (11.1%), 5 touchdowns (13.8%)
Average points per possession - 1.14
Average yardage per possession - 21.91 yards
So please, tell me more about how Buck Pierce is better.
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.
-
What happens if we win on Friday night?
We'll be on pace to finish 5-13 AND host the Eastern Semi. Which would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
-
We've seen OC's demoted before in the league , would it be possible for the club to demote Burke to a DC next season and bring in a new head coach?
He seems to want to escape the public pressure, clearly nobody is going to hire him as a HC anytime soon.... might as well pay him to do a job rather then paying him to sit on the couch?
Would it be possible to give him the ultimatum of either being the DC or Quitting?
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.
-
I think that Hank's time was done here & that fans wanted to move on with him. Initially, they liked Tate but injuries, behaviour, weird antics & really questionable quotes to the media has really soured Stamps fans on Tate. They don't miss Hank because the Stamps are winning as much as they did when Burris was with the Stamps. The Stamps are deeper at the qb position now than they ever were when Hank was here. I think one of the issues is I haven't seen one Stamps fan say that Tate is the guy of the future. I think he's frustrated, seeing his career going downhill & pissed off that people really want him gone. And he's looking for a scapegoat. On Wednesday it was the Stamps physicians that were to blame for his problems health which was totally unfair.
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...
-
Who the hell is Shankman anyways?
I'm Shankman*, and everyone here needs to stay on topic.
*I'm not really Shankman, thank God.
-
I really thought his decision was great on a second/third viewing. I was extremely impressed by it. On some plays he made some great reads and others just didn't make the play. Easy one was the 2nd and 9 or 10 and he hit a quick checkdown to Simpson. Simpson already had 7-8 yards and easily could have plowed forward to get the first (or very close to it) but went sideways and didn't get the yard.
Goltz will surely have his growing pains and Bomber fans are going to have to be patient. Right now though the fact that he is making smart decisions bodes well for him.
Sadly, that is where this otherwise fine plan completely falls apart.
-
-
Bellefeuille: Burke decides QB on Saturday
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
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.