TrueBlue4ever

Neither. I just find it comical (and pretty hypocritical) that Bomber fans on this site get so bent about how popular the Riders are nationwide and how boisterous their fans are about their allegiances, and feel they have to shout it down and de-cry it as a "myth". Sucks for them to be 0-7 and be so close in every game, certainly given the injury issues they have had, but I don't feel sorry for them. No one would feel sorry for the Bombers in the same situation. But I feel no overt need to throw it in their faces unless a fan fires the first shot directly at me (and to my face, not over a message board).
But I find it sillier that people feel the need to be bothered by how supportive the Rider fans are, both at home and on the road, and the fact that the media comments on it, and the massive need to say "that's a lie!", or "it just gets soooo annoying" when the most ardent Bomber fans do EXACTLY the same thing, like it's OK for us to do it, but a crime for another fan base to. The perception of a strong Rider national fan base is not inaccurate - come to any Banjo Bowl and see how well their fans travel. This is just my opinion, but it smacks of sour grapes and a massive inferiority complex, like it takes away from how good Bomber fans are if we don't get the same props, or if another team gets any credit. And it is so predictable around here, when we do well we can revel in their failure, but when we have a struggling team that we can't puff our chests out about, we revert to the "well they suck too" and "they are in your face about it (like we aren't?). Just funny how childish it seems, and to me, this petty attitude and classlessness DOES reflect badly on our fanbase (and I don't expect anyone to adopt that last line of thinking). I am sure I am overreacting to most, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I don't need to tear down other anonymous people to make me feel better about myself - I don't want to give that kind power to others to determine my life happiness, especially fans of a competing sports team.
Anyway, just my observation and opinion, no Rider flag waving intended.

Neither. I just find it comical (and pretty hypocritical) that Bomber fans on this site get so bent about how popular the Riders are nationwide and how boisterous their fans are about their allegiances, and feel they have to shout it down and de-cry it as a "myth". Sucks for them to be 0-7 and be so close in every game, certainly given the injury issues they have had, but I don't feel sorry for them. No one would feel sorry for the Bombers in the same situation. But I feel no overt need to throw it in their faces unless a fan fires the first shot directly at me (and to my face, not over a message board).
But I find it sillier that people feel the need to be bothered by how supportive the Rider fans are, both at home and on the road, and the fact that the media comments on it, and the massive need to say "that's a lie!", or "it just gets soooo annoying" when the most ardent Bomber fans do EXACTLY the same thing, like it's OK for us to do it, but a crime for another fan base to. The perception of a strong Rider national fan base is not inaccurate - come to any Banjo Bowl and see how well their fans travel. This is just my opinion, but it smacks of sour grapes and a massive inferiority complex, like it takes away from how good Bomber fans are if we don't get the same props, or if another team gets any credit. And it is so predictable around here, when we do well we can revel in their failure, but when we have a struggling team that we can't puff our chests out about, we revert to the "well they suck too" and "they are in your face about it (like we aren't?). Just funny how childish it seems, and to me, this petty attitude and classlessness DOES reflect badly on our fanbase (and I don't expect anyone to adopt that last line of thinking). I am sure I am overreacting to most, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I don't need to tear down other anonymous people to make me feel better about myself - I don't want to give that kind power to others to determine my life happiness, especially fans of a competing sports team.
Anyway, just my observation and opinion, no Rider flag waving intended.

McManus and Goveia have scouted for years, Walters is very familiar with the Canadian Talent. I don't really get some of the posts on here, we are 3-4 and battling BC for third, BC ain't that great so its very possible we will get 3rd even with the Willy injury, It's almost like when adversity hits, the fans just go nuts and declare the season is over and then look for scapegoats immediately, we are 3-4. Why are people acting like we are 0-7? Seriously, it's mind boggling at times to read some of these posts but then again, I've been posting long enough to know that when the going gets tough, some of the "fans" get going really... 
 
Anyways, regarding the OC, i don't think its gonna happen mid season, it seems unlikely, never works, basically would be running the same O with a different guy in charge, you can't expect to change your playbook completely in a bye week, it just can't and never happens really. 
 
As for the running backs coach, look around the league, lots of teams have them.. the way i see it, the RBs coach is an entry level position really, it's an offensive assistant really... many teams in the league have running backs coaches. 
 
Would i like to see Marcel sent packing? YOU DAMN RIGHTS... Will it happen mid season? Unlikely. 

Not sure if the replays truly showed how good that recovery was. He stumbled badly when the receiver made the cut in the end zone and the ball was already in the air. From the stands I said "6 points right there". His closing speed after he got his feet under him was pretty spectacular.

Not buying it. If he was as illustrious as you guys are trying to portray, he would still be on a roster and not cut from two other squads.. One with potentially worse QB depth then us..

You guys aren't even scratching the surface.
Mark Jackson (back-up to Deiter Brock)
Troy Kopp (minus 30 minutes vs Saskatchewan)
Stefan LeFors
Keithan McCant
and the two biggies:
T J Rubley
Tee Martin

Two very good back-to-back posts gcn. I think you are bang on on both. This smacks of the Alex Brink/Joey Elliot situation three years ago (how soon we forget). Everyone hated Brink (with reason - he couldn't perform) and clamored for Elliot, then all the fan boys got their wish and Elliot started - and was competent for one game, sub-par by 2 once defences had tape on him, and had us begging for option #4 (or Buck's return) shortly thereafter.
The Brohm situation needs to be separated from the Marve equation. Brohm is struggling mightily on the most basic stuff, namely getting the ball to the receiver on less than one hop. Mechanics? Confidence? The simple inability to throw a pass? I find it impossible to believe that he never had the skill in the first place, he's been around pro football for a decade, including the NFL. I saw him between plays in Edmonton actually pantomime the drop back and release motion before getting into the huddle, which I've never seen in a game before by a QB. Something is off in his head, and it was like he was trying to re-gain his muscle memory, much like a golfer after an errant swing or in his pre-shot routine. Got to think a lot of this is mental, and the constant chirping about Marve being better from the media and the chattering masses on this board, as well as being booed after one series at home has got to get to him, no matter how thick-skinned he is. Not sure he can re-gain that confidence again, or if the fan base will even give him that chance. Anyone want to give me odds on a bet that he will get booed in the first offensive drive BEFORE the first down pass - that is when he takes the field to start the first drive? 3:1? 2:1? Even money?
I won't disagree that right now Marve couldn't be worse, but those who are waiting for a savior in him are most likely in for a rude awakening a la Elliot. The message from the team has been consistent (no need for conspiracy theories) - he doesn't follow the system (spare me the "it's because the system sucks" line - Willy seems to be doing more than well enough in it when he's not getting knocked out of games), and free lances way too much, doesn't go through progressions, and is so run-first mentality that he will be too easy to defend once teams figure that out and spy him with a linebacker and force him to beat them with his arm. The coaches clearly believe he is not ready yet, and Elliot is a great example on this very team how rushing a player into action because he "looks" better than option number 2 to the fans can be a recipe for disaster. I can hear people saying "Who is to say that Marve is bound to fail anyway? He's shown more and just needs that chance." OK, but clearly the coaches don't see it that way (and I'll still trust their judgment over a bunch of internet armchair QBs who have seen nothing but scrub-time action against prevent defences in Marve's case), and history has seen more examples of one-game wonders who flame out when pushed too quickly than those who instantly rise up and become stars out of nowhere. Patience among the fans has been exhausted by the 25 years of losing, and we are all praying for the next Ricky Ray/Rakeem Cato/Bo Levi Mitchell diamond in the rough, but sorry folks more patience is required. If you are out of patience right now, then you might as well turn in your tickets and stop visiting this board until the team is a solid contender again. See you in a couple of years if that is the case.
I suspect the coaches are hoping that Brohm can get his head back into it and find that confidence again, at least enough to tread water, and that Marve and his skill set of stronger arm and better feet can pick up the mental stuff sooner than later. Actually I'm sure they are praying that Willy can play, and then the other stuff can be put off until it fixes itself over time, or adequate replacements can be made.

You don't……..and yet there will be 50 or so posts with variations on "Brohm sucks", "fire O'Shea/Bellefeuille/Hall/Walters", "Hurl needs to go", "Marve is our saviour", "you guys are just negatrons", "positrons are deluded", "blow it up and re-build", "we can't blow up again, give it time" (did I miss anything?) in the next 24 hours, all of it in CAPS LOCK YELLING.
 
I'm going to enjoy my Sunday instead. The problems will still be there on Monday, but maybe the emotions will have cooled enough by then.

Fair enough, and that's great if it works. Always nice to be the genius who thinks outside the box and challenges the status quo - if the results are there. Sadly, the past recent history of the Bombers is that when they get guys in player personnel who march to the beat of their own drummer (Reinbold, Mack) and don't care what anyone else thinks about what is the right way to do things, their contrarian way of doing things has proven disasterous for the franchise.

I hear you and understand that viewpoint, so let's take it back to Taman's scenario. You get hired to manage a company. You have a boss (let's call him a CEO or "president") who is in control of the money, answers to shareholders, and wants a successful, profitable enterprise. You are in to be put in charge of the day-to-day stuff. You are given a budget to work with that is smaller and more restrictive than you would like, but the president says I can find another manager if you don't like the set-up, there are plenty of people looking to be managers and only 7 other companies like this one. You have grown up your whole adult life around this business and worked your way up to become a manager - do you turn this chance down on the principle that you have to make certain concessions to this president?
You are in charge of hiring the new workers and assembling a "team" that can make your company successful and profitable. However, there are foremen (let's call them "coaches") who were already hired before you came in, and were hand-picked by the "president". You as the manager make sure the operation runs smoothly, the foreman oversees the workers directly. Your concession is that you have to accept the existing foremen and can't overhaul the whole staff yourself right away, but you are in charge of them. Not a problem because you actually work well with the foremen, and they have done a good job so far.
Now fast forward a few years and the company has taken a hit, and the shareholders are angry. The president tells you he is pleased with your work, but hears about problems between the foremen and the workers, and recognizes that a culture change needs to happen. Calls you in and says that the foremen need to go because if nothing happens the shareholders pull out and the company collapses. You think the foremen can salvage the job, plus you have always had a good working relationship with them, but you know that the problems exist and status quo will not be acceptable to your higher ups. The president tells you point blank to fire the foremen and hire a new staff of your own choosing, and if you don't like it, we'll fire you instead, and then find a new manager who will fire the foremen. Remember that this isn't some McJob, this is your career and this ouster will follow you for the rest of your life in any future job interview. Do you really say "take a hike" on principle, knowing that every future job you apply for, the first thing your new prospective bosses will note is your defiance of authority? Or do you fire the guy who wasn't your pick anyway in the first place, bite your lip, and get on with your job? (Remember that Taman didn't run around yelling overtly about how his hands were tied, he used diplomacy and code-speak when everyone in the media knew anyway it was Bauer who pulled the trigger).
Finally, Taman in the end did exactly what you suggest he should do if unsatisfied, which is walk away. When Kelly came in, Taman knew he could no longer accept his changed and diminished role, and opted out. He was willing to accept the job that was originally offered to him, but when the rules changed around him again and again, he adapted until he no longer could tolerate it, and then he stepped away. Hardly the back-stabbing, save my own hide to secure my survival coward that has been suggested by some.
But I respect your point of view and was happy to engage in a thoughtful debate about it. I just think that it isn't so black and white in the real world that you can talk in absolutes like "if I disagree with my boss I tell them to take a hike, and if I lose my job, so be it - unlike Brendan Taman who would rather be a lap dog".
Sorry if the "liar" tag came across as harsh, was trying for humour. (I thought Airplane! was always your go-to if you wanted to lighten the mood).

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.

Bingo.
One other possible weakness might be fatigue (if Nicholls plays down to his usual sub-par back-up QB form), or so we hope.

Bingo.
One other possible weakness might be fatigue (if Nicholls plays down to his usual sub-par back-up QB form), or so we hope.

No one is making the argument that Walters is a draft guru. Neither were you.Your argument was that Mack wasn't cut as much slack for an injury-prone developing draft choice. The counter-argument is that Walters doesn't have the repeated history of screwing up like Mack did...yet. If he does, I'm sure the knives will come out on this board as they always do. And if the baseline standard for greatness as a GM is Joe Mack, then the bar to be "the greatest" really isn't set too high, now is it?

Shh! 17 is trying (again) to defend Joe Mack and his draft strategy. Want to see where he goes with this argument.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."

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.

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.