Onyenegecha

They held the 8-1 Saskatchewan Roughriders to 127 yards passing, 154 yards rushing and zero touchdowns. They sacked Durant 8 times. Dressler, Getzlaf, Bagg and Simon all had ONE catch each. There isn't a single member of that defence that deserves to be called a bum. Not one.

They held the 8-1 Saskatchewan Roughriders to 127 yards passing, 154 yards rushing and zero touchdowns. They sacked Durant 8 times. Dressler, Getzlaf, Bagg and Simon all had ONE catch each. There isn't a single member of that defence that deserves to be called a bum. Not one.

They held the 8-1 Saskatchewan Roughriders to 127 yards passing, 154 yards rushing and zero touchdowns. They sacked Durant 8 times. Dressler, Getzlaf, Bagg and Simon all had ONE catch each. There isn't a single member of that defence that deserves to be called a bum. Not one.

Suber is a bum when he had a damned good game? Did you notice Dressler doing anything today? That's cause Suber was doing his thing. He's had a real tough year to be sure but today he was real good. 

Funny that the arbitrary number you chose was 240. Let's break it down then:
 
Those 5 games:
 
HAM: 33-43, 406 yds, 1 TD, 0 int
BC: 20-42, 256 yds, 0 TD, 1 int
SSK: 19-33, 241 yds, 0 TD, 0 int
MTL: 17-25, 335 yds, 3 TD, 0 int
CGY: 22-33, 284 yds, 0 TD, 4 int
 
If those other three non-POW games are your idea of a good game, I don't know what to tell you. So he's a guy who can rack up great stats against laughably terrible defences. He also had 134 rushing yards and 1 rushing TD all year. And in his 10 appearances in 2012, he threw for zero touchdowns 7 times. His TD-INT ratio was 5-12. That's MARGINALLY better than Pierce has been in 2013 (he's at 2:6 right now). He was 0-7 against teams not named Hamilton and Montreal. 
 
I try to be neutral when I look at stats and draw my conclusions based on the numbers I see. I never hated Elliott, I never really liked him. I've always been sort of meh. But wow, outside of his two great games, his stats are just awful. And two great games is only one more than Troy Kopp and Ryan Dinwiddie had.

how many points did he get us in the LDC last year?

The thing is people (especially the media) like to mock or critisize these small moves.  But I don't see it that way.  It's about getting better one player at a time.  Its going to be painstaking and lengthy.
 
Kelly is a little better then Anderson.  Peach is a little better then Harris.  So on and so on.  And one day you are a .500 team and then you find better players again bit by bit and one day you are 12-6.  I hope.  So yeah these moves are meh and most of these players have less then stellar resumes.  But they can still be an improvement over the guys who got you to 1-7.

I stand corrected. Palardy's leg strength is not an issue at all, based on one 48 yard field goal and the fact that no other CFL kicker has happened to hit a 50+ yarder this season. He also hit a 51 yarder in 2010, so we should definitely stand pat.

Hefney should totally still be on the Bombers.  In fact he should be starting this Sunday- Weston Dressler

Demond Washington, who plays where Hefney did, and Desia Dunn, who plays where Hefney should have played, have been two of the most solid players on D. I loved 09-11 Hefney, but when he messed up the plans to play him at SAM after cutting Kent that was when my opinion of him changed.

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. 

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. 

So which is it? Did Mack spend his whole time here playing it safe, or did he spend his whole time here taking chances?
 
Because everyone for the last 3 years has been on him about making "off the board" draft picks and taking chances on guys that weren't the slam dunk (some panned out, some took a while to pan out, and some are average). I think we can also agree that signing Buck Pierce prior to the 2010 season was a massive chance he took, too.
 
Yes, when it came to throwing money at free agents, he didn't take very many risks (or, he made some offers, but didn't risk as much as other teams and thus lost out -- again, many of those decisions turned out to be the right one).
 
At this stage, there's no way I can defend the Joe Mack era. I feel we had (mostly) terrible coaching during his entire tenure here, we've started to revamp and improve the O-line (which while I think sets us up for the long run, did not allow us to be successful over the last 3.5 years), and obvioulsy dropped the ball in the QB department (for a variety of reasons not necessarily all attributable to Mack, but certainly not free of his choices/influence, as well).
 
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.
Jim Popp started with a stacked all-American team with the Stallions in 1994, and only had to replace depth with depth moving forward. They continually have enough talent that the depth they bring in has time to grow into a starting role. Oh, and Tracy Hamm followed by Anthony Calvillo.
Wally Buono came into a B.C. Lions team in 2003 great receiving talent (Simon, Clerement, Thelwell) and brought Dave Dickinson back to the CFL. He's kept them in it by finding talent, developing it, not overpaying vets or bringing in high-priced, flashy free agents.
John Hufnagel inherited a team in 2008 with Henry Burris, Joffrey Reynolds, and that insanely good receiving corps. He also had a coach (himself) coming off coaching the likes of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Eli Manning in the NFL. He's built a solid nucleus, and out of the 3 definitely takes the most chances on free agents and draft picks (some that pan out, some that don't), but he started his regime with enough talent already returning in order to win a championship in Year 1.
Joe Mack inherited a mess of missing draft picks, no QB, a faltering O-line with one solid player, and no Canadian depth. Admittedly, he couldn't fix things. He probably shouldn't have had to model this franchise after Montreal and B.C. when we didn't have the talent yet to be so catious and long-term thinking. He should've done everything he could've to bring that big talent in first, and then worried about building stability from there.
 
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.

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.

Kool aid is way better than Haterade.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
 
Week 8
Max Hall - 14 possessions, 6 two and outs (42%), 3 turnovers, 1 touchdown
Average points per possession - 0.64
Average yardage per possession - 23.92 (longest 103 yards)
 
Buck Pierce - 1 possession, 1 two and out (100%)
Average points per possession - 0
Average yardage per possession - 9 (longest 9 yards)
 
2013 totals to date
Buck Pierce - 61 possessions, 32 two and outs (52.4%), 7 turnovers (11.4%), 7 touchdowns (11.4%)
Average points per possession - 0.98
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
 
Max Hall - 14 possessions, 6 two and outs (42%), 3 turnovers (21%), 1 touchdown (7%)
Average points per possession - 0.64
Average yardage per possession - 23.92

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.

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