TrueBlue4ever

Agreed. So does it end with Chevy? Because there are a bunch more who knew and said nothing and did not press the matter, and if guilt by association is the standard, then more heads should roll. This is the tricky part with Cheveldayoff, if you take him at his word. He was privy to information about misconduct with a player, Beach acknowledges that he kept the specific details to himself for some time, so how much they knew is a live question. It seems to be common consensus that the decision at that meeting was that the hockey ops people would continue to focus on hockey and the management side (president and Vice President) would address the issue. Aldrich was let go a month later. Could Chevy have reasonably assumed that the matter had been handled after an internal investigation based on the result? And did he have the power as an AGM handling cap space issues to challenge the team President? Was he aware of the positive job review Quenneville wrote? Was he aware of the later hiring of Aldrich to a Michigan high school? Unlike Quenneville, he has not been caught in a lie, and has been cooperative with the investigation, from what we’ve been told. For the record, I think his answers have been non-committal and greasy enough that it is not acceptable to keep him on, but that is my lone opinion. Just raising these questions to determine where the line is drawn between having full knowledge, having partial knowledge, being assigned to deal with it, or being told it was being handled, to actively discouraging any action? If the baseline is “if you know you tell” then there is a long line of coaches, staff, players, apparently media according to Beach, and sadly Beach himself, who never reported it to police because he felt trapped, which allowed the subsequent assault at Michigan to happen. Surely Beach cannot be punished for his inaction given his place in it all, but where does the “you know and YOU had a responsibility to report while this person knew but they don’t” line get drawn. Maybe the simple line of “if you were in that meeting and were management in any capacity that is he line” but it may inculcate some who were there but did not hold true power, and may exculpatory others who knew but deferred to others when they could have spoken up. Not a black and white issue, as much as the NHL would like to fit it into a tidy box.

So if/when Chevy resigns or is let go, how quickly does the story die? He would be the last one in that meeting so from the media and NHL perspective, I would wager that would represent the accountability that is being demanded from many quarters. But how far should this reach? The NHLPA knew about his complaint and offered counselling but took no legal action on his behalf or investigated the complaint. The NHL at first did not want to investigate either until the media made noise. According to Beach his teammates all knew yet none of them are being forced to be kicked out of the league. Beach said comments were made in practice to him by teammates in front of other players, coaches and media. Should that media also be held accountable for not saying anything? And of Steve Lyon wants to go after Heisinger because of his connection to Graham James, then should Joe Sakic be removed from Colorado and have his name removed from the Cup since he was a player on the Broncos when James coached, and he never spoke out about what was an open secret in Swifr Current. And if the answer there is no because as a player Sakic had limited power to do anything, then does Chevy get any benefit of the explanation that he was not the decision-maker in that meeting as merely the cap management guy Chicago, or has the decision already been made to remove him to help the league save face (all while the court case is still ongoing with a private report now being made very public and rendering any fair due process in the courts moot with the media and court of public opinion having already passed judgment)? How far down the rabbit hole will this go?

Found the other two. 1991 was Pal Sartori and 2000 was co-coordinators Dickie Adams and Joe Perella.

We could keep debating LaPo. 🤣🤣🤣

The 07 Cup ones worked better with the white pants than the blue, IMO. But these gold ones were terrible.

Ugh, the all-gold. Not the 07 Grey Cup ones, the 2013 when they combined the gold tops with the gold pants for a game in Toronto. Just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Fun fact - we are undefeated wearing these………things. Only worn once, we beat the Als. I did not mind the lightning bolt on the pants as it was a nice nod to the 50’s and 60’s teams, but the blue pants, blue helmet, no. And the lightning bolt logo was hit and miss, better with the white “W” than the blue. But the royals are the best no question. I think the excuse was they did not manufacture that shade of blue so they went darker. Seems strange as an explanation, since we were able to go back to it.

Part of the bigger concern is the “talking out of school” mindset. The victim says everyone on the team knew, he heard slurs at practice and was asked if he liked the oral sex, but somehow that stuff was kept in house. Victim said in his TSN interview things like that were said in the presence of teammates, coaches, and media around practice. When Graham James was coaching Swift Current, I knew guys playing in the WHL who said opposing players would go to the Bronco bench during games and taunt them, asking who coach was blowing that week. This culture of silence is what allowed it to happen, and allowed the Michigan player to be sexually assaulted three years later, because despite the knowledge of management, no one did anything to make sure Aldrich was kept from getting hired again and whitewashed any investigation. So if Chevy felt that top management was handling it as evidenced by the resignation, he would have noticed Aldrich still at the parade, name on the Cup, getting a ring, and could reasonably have asked “why is he still in contact with the players?” That is the argument that will determine his fate.

Winnipeg - has clinched first place, first round bye, and will host Wast Final Saskatchewan - can clinch playoff spot with a win AND a BC loss AND an Edmonton loss or tie. Calgary - no clinching or elimination possibility this week BC - no clinching or elimination possibility this week, but can finish no better than 3rd with a loss AND a Saskatchewan win Edmonton - eliminated from playoff contention with a loss AND a Calgary win AND a win or tie by Saskatchewan Montreal - can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Calgary loss or a win AND a BC loss Toronto - can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Calgary loss or a win AND a BC loss Hamilton - no clinching or elimination possibility this week Ottawa - eliminated from playoff contention

I will add this having done some more looking into stuff. The media are jumping on Cheveldayoff‘s comments from July. He was asked if he knew anything about the allegations. Quenneville was asked the same thing. Q said he did not know a thing until the media brought it up that summer. This is clearly a lie since he was at the meeting in 2010. Cheveldayoff’s answer was that he did not know until he was asked if he was aware of anything “just prior” to Aldrich’s departure from the club. The meeting was May 23 and the resignation was June 29. So “technically” it could be argued the meeting was “just prior” to his departure, albeit a bit of a stretch. Bottom line, as someone else put it, not a lie but greasy as hell. And his statement yesterday was more of the same, not really saying anything and just deferring to the “won’t say anything while the investigation continues, report speaks for itself” storyline. In the end, he looks guilty by dodging questions, but he may not owe the media anything anyway, and legally it is best not to put your case in the public eye first. So should he be fired if he knew, but had people above him saying they would deal with it so he sat back and did nothing? Since he was part of the senior executive and privy to the meeting, one could speculate he had some power to influence the decision. If I were the Jets, I think a suspension pending the completion of Bettman’s discussion is the best course. If it is determined he played part in or acquiesced to a cover-up, then he will almost certainly be shown the door. If he honestly felt the higher-ups were taking care of it and had no say in the process, then he gets to stay.

Nah, he wouldn’t do that. He has class.

I read the 107 page report, though not in excessive detail. I did pay attention to the “meeting” section and what Cheveldayoff said. Which is not much. What I did notice is that none of the other parties referenced him in their discussions as being integral to the decisions. He was “just there”. So he had knowledge of an incident. How much detail is unclear, since the stories from that group diverge a bit. And some players say they knew nothing, others said everyone in the locker room knew. I suspect it’s closer to the latter, but it’s like a Peter Nygaard, Harvey Weinstein, Graham James situation where the rumours are out there, most people have heard the rumours and kind of “know” something bad is happening because of the number of stories out there, but have no direct proof, those who have direct proof are not coming forward, or when they come forward their proof is simply their word and they are a lone voice with no corroboration from other people, and those without proof figure someone else with more inside knowledge and power will deal with it. Chevy may not have known about the details, but he can’t deny he did not know there was a situation. But it was also said in the meeting that Bowman asked what should be done, Quenneville was concerned about raising the issue because he did not want a distraction during a Stanley Cup run (a terrible look, and one that should probably get him axed), and McDonough took Q’s side and told Bowman that he would handle it. Chevy and Blunk seem from those accounts to have just “been there” and not involved in any decision making, and it is generally accepted that McDonough said he would handle it. Now, when the coach is still around a few weeks later and lifting the Cup, logic dictates that this should have raised alarm bells with Chevy that nothing was being done. Can you fault him morally for that? Sure. Can you also understand his lack of action if he believes that his boss told the group that he would take care of it? Also yes. And when the guy was removed a couple of days later, would you be satisfied it had been handled, or would you dig further to see specifically what was done to ensure it was handled completely? Each of us will have a different stance on that based our own sense of responsibility and rationalization.

I bet if we dug hard enough into 3DN’s archives they too would have made unkind comments about O’Shea in the 2015 era.

Sports do not make us happy. They allow us to be miserable in a group. 🤣 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/17/uk-economists-prove-it-sports-destroy-happiness/%3foutputType=amp

Clever.

No it’s not. It’s filled with unsubstantiated speculation, misleading information, and flat out inaccuracies. At least it’s an attempt to create an argument using “facts” rather than the ridiculous “he’s arrogant, as proven by his arrogance” comment, but when the facts you use to bolster your credibility are factually incorrect, it kind of shoots holes in your overall argument. And if you need to make stuff up in an attempt to rip someone, then that deserves defending, in my mind.

Honestly, I don’t know which Bomber was more deserving of the POTW than the three named. Stanback had over 200 yards rushing, Lewis had 156 yards receiving and 2 TDs. Hunter had two picks. No one on offence for the Bombers had eye-popping numbers, and Jeffcoat’s two sacks might give him a chance, but turnovers are usually regarded more highly. I am more than happy with a dominant TEAM win than picking one or two guys and ignoring the rest who were equally as important in the win. There is only one truly important thing to win, and the Bombers plan to keep it in their possession on December 12.

As OC’s go, 1991 mystery coach, Kelly, Worman, Cartwright and LaPo were the only ones with a +.500 record. ‘91 guy, Worman, Cartwright, and LaPo only ones who never missed the playoffs. ‘91 guy, Worman and LaPo only ones who were over .500 every year. LPo only one with Grey Cup ring. Kelly and LaPo the only ones who were around more than 2 years to amass those totals. 6 years, 6 seasons better than .500, 6 trips to the playoffs, 1 Grey Cup win. Explain to me again how he didn’t win much? Or it was all on factors other than him, right? None of the credit, all of the blame.

1991 could not find 1992-96 Mike Kelly (54-36, .600, 5 playoff appearances, 2 Grey Cup appearances, 3 seasons over .500) 1997-98 Joe Paopao (7-29, .194, 0 playoffs, 0 seasons over .500) 1999 Bill Stewart (6-12, .333, 0 playoffs) 2000 could not find 2001 Rick Worman (14-4, .778, 1 Grey Cup appearance) 2002-03 Paul LaPolice (23-13, .639, 2 playoff appearances, 2 seasons over .500) 2004 Ron Lancaster Jr. (7-11, .389, 0 playoffs) 2005-06 Mike Gibson 14-22, .389, 1 playoff appearance, 0 seasons over .500) 2007-08 Kit Cartwright (18-17-1, .519, 2 playoff appearances, 1 Grey Cup appearance, 1 season over .500) 2009 Mike Kelly named a bunch of “special assistants” but had no OC (Andy Cox was running back coach and “offensive quality control” until he got sick and was replaced by Manny Matsakis, Richard Vinklarek was o-line coach and “running game co-ordinator” 7-11, .389, no playoffs) 2010-11 Jamie Barresi (14-22, .389, 1 playoff appearance, 1 Grey Cup appearance, 1 season over .500 2012-13 Gary Crowton (7-18, .280, 0 playoffs, 0 seasons over .500) 2013-15 Marcel Bellefeuille (14-33, .298, 0 playoffs, 0 seasons over .500) 2016-19 Paul LaPolice (44-28, .611, 4 playoff appearances, 1 Grey Cup appearance, 1 Grey Cup win, 4 seasons over .500) Kelly’s totals: 6 seasons, 61-47, .565, 5 playoff appearances, 2 Grey Cup appearances, 3 seasons over .500 LaPolice’s totals: 6 seasons, 67-41, .620, 6 playoff appearances, 1 Grey Cup appearance, 1 Grey Cup win, 6 seasons over .500)

I won’t try and get in the writer’s heads, and yeah they could come up with that weak excuse, but O’Shea took a good team and didn’t merely keep it good, he turned it into a monster so far ahead of the other 8 you need a telescope to see them. A team this dominant cannot logically be ignored (the key word being “logically”).

Edmonton put metal screws in their cleats. Rumour has it they either watered down the field as well or chose not to cover it and let it get frosted up and slippery, although that last bit is speculation and not proven. But the field was very icy either way. Bomber defenders were getting bloodied up from tackling and getting jabbed with the screws. A couple needed tetanus shots after the game because of it. The rule was if a player is caught with illegal footwear they were disqualified and kicked out. The Bombers repeatedly complained but the refs did nothing until the 4th quarter and the score already 60-1 or thereabouts. And then all they did was check the footwear at that point and usher the Edmonton players off the field to change shoes and then let them back in. Ron Lancaster after the game grinning like a Cheshire Cat saying “we would never do something so underhanded” to the press. Shalon Baker got picked up by the Bombers from Edmonton the next year and said absolutely we cheated in that game and were laughing in the locker room at the half for getting away with it. Cal Murphy was especially pissed because in 1994 against Baltimore Don Matthews got two Blue Bombers kicked out of the East Final on the third play of the game for illegal footwear. Apparently at half time the Bombers sent their equipment manager to Foot Locker in Edmonton to buy a bunch of baseball cleats for the team, so they would have hard plastic to punch through the permafrost. He arrived in the third quarter with the score 46-1, much too little much too late. Murphy refused to shake hands with Lancaster after the game. Edmonton put up 22 points in the 4th quarter just to rub it in.

Thought about that, but then the Leafs game runs up against the East Final, and the TV crowd won’t line that, especially the dozens of Argo fans watching. So I would guess no.

Also had a lot of success in his three times here, but that seems to be downplayed or flat out ignored by the haters (since you use fanboys). I thought a Grey Cup ring might be the tiebreaker between the problems and the successes in how he would be remembered. And as was said, isn’t WIN the name of the game? But it appears the bitterness runs too deep for some. Maybe you could give me your take on why you take the latter stance. Is it connected to Joe Mack, who if I remember correctly you were a big supporter of? Was it you who came up with IMWT?

Kavis Reed? What does he have to do with any of this?

I kind of hoped the point of the forum would include good discussion and debate and be more than just being dicks and kicking people when they are down. Cuz we seem to take issue with the Riderfans forum for acting that way and banning dissenting opinions, and took umbrage with Lyon’ Guy when he called us assholes (the more valid criticism was his backtracking to our face rather Han owning his stance). And I still think in some ways, this forum offers that, which is why I stay. I agree. The problem in this case with that logic is: - as an OC, he did not for the most part underperform here, and as a head coach he did have some success. But reading comments, you’d think he is useless and undeserving of any job anywhere, and ignores what he did so well, and the success he had (usually dismissed with “it was all the players”). And the. Adding stuff like “he’s arrogant as proven by his arrogance” is a ridiculous personal shot at his character with no substance to back the argument. so why no compassion for the guy who did win here, just because you were seemingly bored with his style of offence? - he isn’t here any more anyway, but the hating continues. We’re not suffering or “paying a dime” for his failures, so why care? Yet I read some of the comments and it feels like people want him to crash and burn, like he deserves it. People who have a problem with him should know that he is not our problem any more, so why keep harping on it? If I am missing the point, please enlighten me with a reasoned debate and I will concede. If you can’t muster up a good counter argument, or get past three sentences in a post, don’t use tldr as an excuse to try to make your point. And if you don’t like me personally or my style, you are free to just block me or not respond. No skin off my nose.