TrueBlue4ever

That I'll agree with completely. And he admitted that in his first year he was too wrapped up in trying to manage all of the coaches and their schemes on the sidelines during games and not reacting to the flow of the game itself, hence the time count and other situational errors. He acknowledged in assessing his work after year one that he needed to trust his assistants more and be "in the game" as a head coach, but he was still learning this new role, as he had been a career assistant before Winnipeg. I think he took great strides after that first year, and is probably better suited to the role required of a head coach now after some time away to reflect on it from afar. Don't think he is Trestman or Buono-esque by any stretch, but he can be decently competent if given another chance.

Who would you put behind us? Saskatchewan for sure, and Ottawa is for this ranking and feels about right. Montreal maybe since we beat them, but they've beaten Calgary and Hamilton, the consensus 2 best teams in the league on paper. We are behind Toronto, Edmonton and BC in the standings. Calgary is Calgary and just beat us, and Hamilton has a losing record, but should have beaten Calgary and thoroughly waxed us at home. Who do we bump out of the top 6?

It's his high profile job on TSN that makes people think he's a good HC, when he really isn't. And it was his clueless GM and lack of a back-up QB that makes people think he's an awful HC, when he really isn't. Good players make good coaches.

Wittman was one of the all-time greats, although possibly underappreciated. He was never the "marquee" guy in any sport (Cole and Irvin would get the national hockey stuff, he'd get the regionals only, and he'd be bumped by Cahill or Armitage in the CFL often) but there was NO ONE would was as versatile and so rock solid in everything he did. Edmonds has shown clearly that being good in one genre does not make you good in a different sport, and Wittman could entertain equally in a 2 OT hockey game, 3 hour football game, a 10 second track and field sprint or the hour of filler leading up to it (him and McGowan were absolute brilliance), or the leisurely pace of curling. Name me another broadcaster today that can diversify as effortlessly as that (Cuthbert is the only one who comes to mind as a full-time multi-sport broadcaster). And just wondering if Walby and Dunigan were not ex-Bombers, would they be as highly regarded? Matt is getting better, but he was pretty rough at the start (his "commentary" was usually just hooting and hollering after a play with no real insight into the play itself). And Walby was flat out horrendous in my view, not very bright either - and it showed. And Doug Brown needs to stop breaking out the mangled Thesaurus every time he opens his mouth to do colour. We get it Doug, you're smarter than all of us, just ask you.

Not it love with LaPo, but always thought he took a lot more heat than deserved for the Bombers' failures. He inherited an absolute mess from Mike Kelly, who ran both Doug Berry and Brendan Taman out of town and then dismantled the team and its reputation with his antics. Has a tough first year with a record number of close losses, and has the wherewithal to recognize his biggest failing as a coach, which is self-admitted micromanagement. Improves in that area next year, and really thanks to the fact that Buck Pierce actually stayed healthy gets to the Grey Cup. Then is forced to start 4 in a row on the road and loses his QB again, and is starting to claw back at 2-6 when he gets blind-sided by Mack. Everyone who blamed LaPo rejoices for about a week until the next game, when 52-0 in Saskatchewan highlights that the problem wasn't the coach, it was his boss and how the team was (so very poorly) built. But too many on the boards had invested their credibility in praising mighty Joe in the wake of Mike Kelly's poor showing, so they bought into the "LaPo as incompetent" theory and began repeating it ad nauseum to deflect from their misguided assessment of Joe Mack's uselessness.

Has a 9-9 team ever missed the playoffs? If we go 9-9 I expect we'd make the playoffs, but no playoffs = no O'Shea to me. Usually not, but given BC only made the crossover by one game last year at 9-9, it's not a give me by any stretch. 9 wins will always get you into the playoffs in the CFL. Hell most times 8 is enough, last year being a bit of an oddball in that it wasn't enough. Just the simple numbers. Some teams always have to lose games and some teams will always win more than half of their games. Only way I don't see a .500 record making the playoffs in the CFL is if parity is such that the top teams only pick up like 10 wins and everyone is sitting there with .500 records. With the crossover rules, 9 wins has always been enough, but before that was in place 11 teams missed the playoffs with .500 or better records. My point was simply that the Bombers were on track to hit 9-9 and were out of a playoff spot (yes, it's very early) so is missing the playoffs really the automatic "fire O'Shea" choice, regardless of how the team does? I wouldn't be so black and white about it. Remember what happened when we knee-jerk fired Doug Berry in an off-year after a Grey Cup run, or when we repeated the mistake with LaPolice in the same scenario. Coaches all have a shelf life, but 2 years isn't it IMO, especially after the brutality of the Joe Mack regime. This team was scorched earth and needs to be completely re-built; like it or not we need some more patience, having gone from 3-15 to 7-11 and now a .500 record.

In the OP it said Picard was sick today.Yes I know. Your point? It's not surprising that with Picard sick they would need another guy snapping the ball and that Neufeld would be that guy. What's with your snarky comments lately Jacquie? I was just stating a fact, that Neufeld was playing centre in practice. It's a notable development, even if Picard was sick. yep, Jacquie is the one being "snarky" I, for one, think it's notable considering how Goosen is waiting in the wings .. The clock is ticking for Goossen. He appears to be bypassed for a starting role, and I am beginning to wonder what is missing from his game. I don't know...he's still young, and this week we are going up against a very good Defence. Might just be an experience thing. I know...you can't get experience unless you get experience....but this might not be the dline to do it against.Can't help but wonder if it had been Joe Mack that drafted Goosen if people would be so forgiving of his utter lack of progress. Impossible hypothetical to ponder. Mack would never have drafted an o-lineman in a spot where we need to draft an o-linemen. Mack would have drafted a 5'9", 170 lb. DB ranked #23 in the #3 spot and then stated "We're going to convert him to slotback, because he's an athlete, and you can never have too much athleticism on your team. We are confident we can teach him to be the extra blocker in the heavy package, and fight the traffic and make those possession catches over the middle, so no, we don't worry about playing him in a position he's never played before, because he's an athlete."

Right now the Bombers are on pace for 9-9 this year….and missing the playoffs. You'd axe O'Shea in that scenario?

KBF - "From Hell's heart I stab at thee!!!" 1D - "I'm sorry, were you saying something?" https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.WHTWW1bZli%2bBj7r3yBQY8Q&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.YGtrwCxcg52WR6ujmL4E4A&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.a1oB7TENBwvvPPD2kszSCQ&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.idH3bg0W2NX9xfWFjH7hCg&pid=15.1&P=0

20 years ago maybe but Cole is an old man now and can't keep up with the play, he spends most of the games now hoping that he is sitting in the pie. Yeah Cole is so past his prime, it's not even funny. He's got to retire. Sadly, whichever yahoo who replaces him won't be any better. It's just disgusting. You might be pleasantly surprised to hear Jets Tsn TV feed guy Dennis Beyak announce a game. He has done some Olympic broadcasts as well. The TSN Radio Jets guys Brian Munz and Paul Edmonds are good, very good. But for football, I'm totally comfortable with Knuckles. Big fan of Edmonds, I wish he would do the TV play by play for the Jets. Beyak is better suited to a national telecast though. He has that non partisan "classic" play by play voice. Edmonds is great with his lines and when he gets excited. Works best when you are doing play by play for a targeted "home" team. Edmonds - not a fan. Can't stand him, actually. His wordiness was great as a baseball play-by-play guy where you have to fill a lot of dead air between plays, but in hockey he needs to learn to be much more minimalist. He is usually calling "SCORE!" 4-5 seconds after the goal has gone in, and he is too homerish for my tastes. Those attempts at catch phrases also fall flat with me. Fortunately, I watch all the games on Jets TV, so unless I'm stuck in my car, don't have to listen to him. Munz was decent if a bit excitable, not sure why they bumped him in favour of Edmonds. Beyak is top-notch and, like Irving with the Bombers, can be professional and impartial, but still give that extra bit of attention to the home side without being an unabashed and biased cheerleader.

Some NSFW subtitles, but hilarious otherwise.

If I could dumb it down any further for you I would have.

- a counterpoint to the "the Grey Cup drought has made people too negative and impatient, especially those who never saw a Grey Cup win" theory - this theory suggests that not experiencing a winner has in fact made those searching for positives too desperate too accept anything as positive - the lengthy drought has made people too hypersensitive on both sides - excessive negativity is a problem on the boards, but the worse problem are those who are willing to accept mediocrity and chafe at any criticisms, over-exaggerating it into a false label of "sky is falling" syndrome, all in the sake of finding positives - all of the losing in the last 25 years has led to more negative posts overall in sheer numbers, which is attributed incorrectly as rampant "negation"posting - attacking those with different viewpoints becomes more important than debating and analyzing the actual problems with the team - the team's long-standing mediocrity has lowered expectations for some, where "moral victories" have replaced actual victories as acceptable -finding positives in losses is the new normal, vs. the 1980's where every loss was open to criticism but not subject to overreaction -this mirrors current society, where "participation"medals have replaced actual achievement so we can feel good about ourselves and settle for celebrating mediocrity rather than striving for true excellence -this is also analogous to reading a Cole's notes version as a substitute for reading a full post, seeing it as just as complete and relevant when all it really is is laziness - the short-term solution is to avoid posting for 24 hours after a game when emotion trumps logic -the long term solution is to realize that you will have another game to replace the angst over the past one

I get the sense that it works the other way too in terms of expectations. I can see how fans who have never seen a winner get down on the team more easily than they might if we had had that breakthrough. But on the other side of it, because many fans have never seen the top of the mountain, moral victories after a loss like in Calgary suffice, and the "positive" fans will rip the "negative" ones (I hate these labels, BTW, but will use them for argument's sake) for being all doom and gloom. Objectivity has been lost on both sides. I am on the far side of 45, and started following the team around the 50th anniversary season. Became a "true" fan (understood the game, knew the players, could rattle off the stats, etc.) right around the 1984 season. Pretty damn fine time to become a fan, let me tell you. That team is still the best all-around team I have ever seen, hands down. Fans who witnessed the mirage of 2001 may see that as the high water mark, but they had nothing on the dominance of that '84 team. Not only would they not lose at home, they would simply crush every team that came into Winnipeg. Every loss on the road was a disappointment, because this team expected to win all the time, and so did its fans. A loss would have received the same criticism as it would today, but the debate would not spiral into the "sky is falling" hystrionics that some "negatrons" do throw out there (because they've seen the same movie so many times before) or that some "positrons" falsely accused the critics of throwing out there (I'd argue there are a greater number of false complaints from the positive side about how defeatist the comments from the critics are, rather than the actual number of defeatist comments themselves, and then the fight is on again, but to be fair it is easier to be negative with all the failures of the past 25 years, so I get that can grate on those who want to believe in this team). I am not happy about the loss and don't wish to find positives in it. Does this make me a negatron who thinks we need to blow up the team yet again? Absolutely not. I like the direction we are going in, and know that losses happen, so no need to get too low after one and paint the whole season or regime with a bad brush. In the same breath, no need to say all is well after a win. Just like we gave this game away with dumb mistakes and can feel positive with outplaying Calgary, so too could you argue Montreal did the same to us last week but for the punt block and pick-6 INT. But I will pick apart the mistakes made and not just accept it as growing pains, and say we are moving forwards in spite of it. A loss is not a step forward. If you truly believe that, then your expectations are way too low, and the club will have no motivation to get better since they feel no pressure to respond to a fan base that has minimal expectations. Bottom line, I have seen a truly great team in the Cal Murphy era that never accepted losing well, did not look for "moral victories", and would call out mistakes on stuff like running punts backwards, time count violations, 107 yard drives where our line was dominated, and brutal turnovers at the worst time without trying to gloss them over. That's what I grew up on and that's how I view the loss. No excuses. That's not "sky is falling" mentality, it's "play like a champion and expect to be a champion" which was the spirit of this team in the 80's and early 90's. It was a different world, both in sports and in life. Coaches were the ones in charge, not the players. Bad play would get you benched, size of your paycheck be damned. Graduation was reserved for grade 12, not every year. You got ribbons and medals for winning, not just for participating. Mediocrity was not cause for a celebration. As for what can be done about this for the old-timers, my solution for myself in the short term is to avoid posting for 24 hours after a game, win or loss, since the boards are ruled by emotion and not common sense, objectivity is out the window, and too many are too concerned with attacking those with an opposite viewpoint rather than actually debating the merits of the point being made. Long term, realize that next week is another game, so this one can be forgotten soon enough.

Funny, in the other post you call those who pointed out the mistakes of the Bombers trolls who "only ooze out from under the bridge after a loss to bash everything", but this is a good synopsis? Double standard much?

On the contrary that eliminates the QB sprint to the corner. You can't lump Marve in with Goltz that easily. For all of Goltz's faults... he was actually pretty money in the redzone (just couldn't actually get the ball into the redzone) Ummm....isn't that an oxymoron, like military intelligence or feminine logic? OH, you're goin' to hell for that one! I prefer "pretty ugly" or "Rider pride".

I was watching Bob McCown the other day and one of the guys on the show was saying that once the Jays came to town it hurt the Argos because now Torontonians think they are too good for the CFL. "Who wants to see Toronto play a team from Saskatchewan when I can watch Toronto play the New York Yankees". Different sports of course, but the guy sounded like a typical Toronto putz and exactly the kind of person that makes sure Canada stays united in its universal hatred of Toronto. And it's so funny because, to me, the reason I love the CFL as much as I do, is for the regional rivalries. I don't give two shits about a team from New York, but I care a whole hell of a lot about the province next door. Maybe I'm not a good sports fan because I don't care as much about Best On Best and maybe I'm too patriotic, but for me, the real beauty of the CFL is how strictly CANADIAN it is... It's the same for me. The big draw of the CFL is that it's local. Who gives a **** about New York or California or where ever else in the States? Give me a team I can be invested in because it's regional. I actually think the bad sports fans are the ones who only care about the biggest most over hyped teams/sports. NFL has this problem and it's also why I refuse to follow it despite loving football. The amount of hype is disproportionate to the actual excitement of the game. ******* Americans, gotta ruin everything by trying to make every game the greatest game in the history of our sport! Hey, hey, don't disrespect the NFL! They are the "world" champions, after all.

I'd like to take a receiver just to be different, but that burned me last week with taking Green over Sutton, so Cornish it is. Now if Marquay McDaniel gets a TD, I'll be right p*ssed.

I disagree... I think the pass is very much in play with Marve... having Willy makes it 2-dimensional: pass or hand-off... Marve makes it 3-dimensional: hand-off, QB run or pass In theory, sure. But in actuality when Marve has come in the overwhelmingly dominant play is QB cut left or right and try to dive between the guard and the tackle. After that has failed 2 or 3 times it has been hand-off to Marshall. Pass is never his first option (which kind of defeats the purpose of calling him a QB). Even his one attempted pass this year in that scenario was out of a run play on a sprint to the corner goal line which got shut off, and the pass itself?.......Yikes! Far too predictable at this point, and has been that way since the start of last season. Not sure if it a play-calling issue (they don't like the pass game down close) or a personnel issue (either the team or Marve doesn't like/trust his passing ability in that situation, or he and they know he'll abandon his progressions and just look to run at first instance), but Marve has consistently shown he is more comfortable with his feet than with his arm at QB in any situation, much less short yardage, where there have been no surprises as to what play is coming. And other teams appear to be catching on this year.

I'm all for the 2 point try, but with Willy and not Marve making the plays. At least offers the illusion that we might throw the ball.

Let's not forget that when Walby played, his size and weight were the huge exception, and not the rule. In his 1984 season, the average height and weight of the o-line (not including him) was 6'3", 244 lbs and he was 6'7", 331 lbs. He was 76 lbs heavier than the next biggest guy. When he retired in 1996 the avg. without him was 6'4", 279 lbs and only 1 other o-lineman was over 300 lbs. Dave Vankoughnett played at 240 lbs. Today, our starters average 6'4", 307 lbs, and everyone (starters and back-ups) is 300+ lbs and with the exception of Picard is 6'4" or taller. Add to that more advanced, harder padding and improved fitness, and everyone moves much faster and hits a ton harder as a result. Just that much more mass coming at you.

I see Paul Friesen is amused by the debate about whether or not the Bombers got "jobbed" on this call and put it in today's paper. He went on to say that all the complaining by Bomber fans about the missed non-TD call was not equally matched by an uproar over the Bomber punt block TD where the kicker got contacted and there was no penalty. While I don't normally get wrapped up in the ongoing Friesen hate-on around here and don't have an axe to grind against his reporting personally, and although I recognize the point that he is trying to make is that as homers we only see things one way, I'd just like to say that if he is going to use the paper to take a shot across the bow at fans then he had better be on solid ground factually. SO, Paul, if you are reading, and think that because the player who contacted the kicker was NOT the one who blocked the kick [as covered in Rule 7, section 1, article 2b allowing contact if you WERE the one who blocked the kick], that means there should be a penalty and the refs missed that one, look at Rule 5, section 4, article 5b which basically allows contact to the punter by any player once a player of the receiving first touched the ball, so there is no longer any protection afforded the punter who is just another live player who can be blocked. Hence the reason we aren't equally up in arms over that "missed" call - it wasn't a missed call.

I thought the same thing at the time, but the rule was changed in 2014 (hence the reason it is not in the outdated rule book - get with the program, cfl.ca!) when coaches were given the opportunity to challenge pass interference. As long as a coach still has a timeout available they can throw a challenge flag on pass interference in the last 3 minutes of the game. Thanks to Bob Irving for that clarification BTW.

When overtime was introduced in 2000, they had a loser point for teams that made it to OT but lost. It encouraged teams to play for ties and try to get a bonus point in OT. That year 7 games went to OT, with 2 ending tied and Hamilton losing two games in overtime that year. It was worse in 2002, when 8 games went into OT and 3 teams (Calgary, Saskatchewan and Ottawa) each had 2 OT losses. The loser point was scrapped the next year. Don't recall a team losing 2 consecutive games in OT though, but it may have happened.

I was at the game, all of the replays they showed on the jumbotron offered no conclusive proof to overturn the call. we figured they didn't have a good camera angle to show. Then watched the highlights later and the "watch him run into the camera man" shot right at the goalline was shown and that would have offered clear evidence that he was NOT in. Wondering if that angle was available to the review officials at the time?