HardCoreBlue

Yea good on him for taking care of himself and the people close to him, I mean that. Football is very short term for most of these guys. The however part, purely from the 'I'm a HardCore Bomber fan and everyone else can suck it' mentality, is my guilty pleasure would be in three games Henoc, modifying a page from the Michael Sam play book, announces on Twitter "I never really wanted to comeback to the CFL anyways". I joke of course.

That's a great word and I'm wondering what the overall team expectations are realistically with the Jets this coming season when it comes to progression. I'm a huge Maurice fan, always have been, I think he's a really good fit with this team. I hope the players reward him with every game this season is a playoff game. I like that mentality better than a team lead by Sutter who suggests just do enough to get into the playoffs (which they didn't do enough last year as it turned out) and then turn it up. I understand why and the benefits you can get from it but I don't like it, never have never will. The expectation has to be the playoffs. Will they consider it an absolute failure if they don't make the playoffs? Tough to say with the rookies that will be in the lineup this year and the division we are in. I think it really depends on how the team plays and progress the young players make. Scheifele and Trouba need to step up this year and start to be difference makers. Both will be in their 3rd year. Lowry needs to continue his progression. Copp and Ehlers need to show they belong and earn the trust of the coach. I think the goaltending situation over the next 2 years is going to be very interesting. Time for someone to take the job from Pavelec. Hammer, meet nail.

You must be from around these parts. Ference is average at best without Chara by his side. As a Jet fan,, I'm hoping they play these guys more so I can have great conversations with my Oiler fan colleagues coming into the office every morning. Something like, 'Unfortunately, McDavid can't play every position for 60 minutes'.

I'm hoping for a big year from Chiarot. Hope he has the fitness and genetics to play 82 games.

That's a great word and I'm wondering what the overall team expectations are realistically with the Jets this coming season when it comes to progression. I'm a huge Maurice fan, always have been, I think he's a really good fit with this team. I hope the players reward him with every game this season is a playoff game. I like that mentality better than a team lead by Sutter who suggests just do enough to get into the playoffs (which they didn't do enough last year as it turned out) and then turn it up. I understand why and the benefits you can get from it but I don't like it, never have never will.

A more important criteria than sacks would be how disciplined and effective is Peach with his Gap assignments. Gap assignment is important, however, a DE has to have the ability to rush the QB. Saying that Peach's zero sacks is excusable because of gap assignment is like saying a receiver with zero catches is worth starting because he blocks well downfield. Stats don't tell the whole story on a player's abilities or worth, but they shouldn't be ignored either. Gap control...sheesh...if that's all we want out of a DE then no wonder our DL is in shambles. Absolutely, ideally I want the whole package from my DE not just one component. Great comparison with the receiver too.

That's where you (and others) and me (and others) disagree. First, It wouldn't have been thrown for 'just because', because that implies I'm throwing a challenge flag for no other reason than the simple fact of throwing it. Not true in this case. There would have been reasons (debatable yes but still reasons), other than just wanting to ensure it was a catch, for which I have mentioned in previous posts. Second, calling it a 'dumb idea' suggests very few, if any, believe that throwing the challenge flag at that moment with those circumstances would have been a good thing. Not true in this case. It seems more than a few (and some probably a lot smarter than me) equal to your side of the debate believe it would have been the appropriate thing to do.. Third, the beauty of hindsight is when a similar scenario presents itself again (and by your own admission, a perfect time to throw it), you can now apply that learning, maximizing (not guaranteeing) a successful result based based on experience. The reason that I call it a dumb idea is simple. In my understanding, you throw a challenge flag when you believe that the officials have made an challengeable error. To have that belief, you need some evidence in that moment that the official is wrong. O'Shea has said he had none. There is no other good reason that I'm aware of to throw one, so if you are throwing it without evidence, that's just dumb. And as to your point about a similar scenario presenting itself, there are big plays or circus catches occurring every game. You can't challenge every one of them, just because. You need evidence and that is what O'Shea, in my opinion, needs to focus on. Go find the replay guy, kick his butt and tell him that he better start doing his job before he (O'Shea) loses his. Anyway, I think I've said all I need to on this one, so let's just do the "agree to disagree" thing and move on, shall we? First bold = not true Second Bold = True Third Bold = Likewise Fourth bold = Absoutely

That's where you (and others) and me (and others) disagree. First, It wouldn't have been thrown for 'just because', because that implies I'm throwing a challenge flag for no other reason than the simple fact of throwing it. Not true in this case. There would have been reasons (debatable yes but still reasons), other than just wanting to ensure it was a catch, for which I have mentioned in previous posts. Second, calling it a 'dumb idea' suggests very few, if any, believe that throwing the challenge flag at that moment with those circumstances would have been a good thing. Not true in this case. It seems more than a few (and some probably a lot smarter than me) equal to your side of the debate believe it would have been the appropriate thing to do.. Third, the beauty of hindsight is when a similar scenario presents itself again (and by your own admission, a perfect time to throw it), you can now apply that learning, maximizing (not guaranteeing) a successful result based based on experience.

Hmm if that's confirmed in what he said, I guess O'Shea himself, as a professional CFL head coach, is thinking whimsical preposterous thoughts.Ya it's confirmed. He said it twice. You think I'm lying? No, not at all. Thank you for posting this. I just wanted to confirm he said it. I was slammed repeatedly by Mr. Dee, WBBFan, Rich, Mike and a few others for talking nonsense, being preposterous and whimsical, why I couldn't be a professional football coach for suggesting that it would have been wise for our head coach to have thrown that challenge flag on that play to slow everything down. Now it's confirmed he agrees. So I'm assuming these same posters will direct their wrath at our Head Coach now for the exact same criticisms they directed towards me. Just because the coach changed his mind, doesn't mean I did. I disagreed with your opinion, but I don't believe I accused you of any of those things. I don't think a coach should waste a challenge on a play he has no evidence will be overturned as you never know what the following play will be and if you wish you still had your challenge and or time-outs. So why would I direct any wrath at the head coach? My point Rich is your (and others) thought process (wasting a challenge) on this particular play with the specific circumstances (time running out, no tape to determine catch or not, opposition hurrying up their offense when they should be burning the clock) is flawed on plays like this with these unique circumstances. And it would seem our Head Coach, upon reflection, would agree. That's all, no more no less.

Hmm if that's confirmed in what he said, I guess O'Shea himself, as a professional CFL head coach, is thinking whimsical preposterous thoughts.Ya it's confirmed. He said it twice. You think I'm lying? No, not at all. Thank you for posting this. I just wanted to confirm he said it. I was slammed repeatedly by Mr. Dee, WBBFan, Rich, Mike and a few others for talking nonsense, being preposterous and whimsical, why I couldn't be a professional football coach for suggesting that it would have been wise for our head coach to have thrown that challenge flag on that play to slow everything down. Now it's confirmed he agrees. So I'm assuming these same posters will direct their wrath at our Head Coach now for the exact same criticisms they directed towards me.

So even if he's injured I can release him for other reasons and can't release him only because he's injured? If so, this would be a close call wouldn't it. Did they decide to cut him prior to knowing of his injury? I don't know what the official rule is and how it's determined and the sequence of things and if that has any bearing on releasing players that are injured.

A more important criteria than sacks would be how disciplined and effective is Peach with his Gap assignments.

Hmm if that's confirmed in what he said, I guess O'Shea himself, as a professional CFL head coach, is thinking whimsical preposterous thoughts.

Yes health #1 as well as good for him in recognizing the importance of knowing football isn't forever.

Yet he's still far better than Brohm. That might be the scariest part about all of this. Brohm isn't a solution to any of our problems, but him and Marve are two sides of the same shitty coin. Why is Brohm still on the team? Can not Nichols or Davis hold the snaps on field goals and converts? Nothing personal I have against him, but he has no future with this team, does he?

Fire MB and let's see what MOS does with a capable OC and a healthy qb. Good thought but whose available that would fit what we need with the talent we presently have (which could all change if we can our existing GM)? Do we go with little experience but forecasted potential (e.g., a Jason Maas type) or do we go with an realistically available OC with appropriate amount of years (3 or more?) of CFL OC experience . . .. And as for the healthy QB, that seems to be a very difficult thing to achieve these days even with a functional Oline.

Totally agree. I was never a fan of MOS as a player but you can tell by his time as a coach in TO that he can coach and knows the game very well. But in TO he had some very athletic players. Thanks to Walters, he has a lousy lineup with atrocious depth. So he's burning out. Same thing happened with LAPO here. Lame GM (Mack) kept feeding him garbage players and he's supposed to make chicken salad out of it. I absolutely guarantee -- if MOS was in Sask with their old, poorly built Taman team he would suck there too. But put him in Hammer or Calgary and he'd have a winning record. Maybe but Austin and Hufnagel's ego might disagree with you.

Just out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? No tape? or the replay clearly shows good play but the challenge flag still comes out? Because if it's the latter, I've seen it on occasion.

Why be so patronizing? I just think challenging that play would have been a strategic thing he could have done at that moment with what was happening. 20 20 hindsight would suggest the non-action gamble (because that's what it was) cost us on that particular play. I believe that call would have been overturned which would have dramatically changed the course of events but none of us will never know. Mix in the non-penalty call we get later adds salt to the wound.

It pains me to say, but kudos to Calgary, they played it perfectly. To me, and here I'm actually not being critical, just identifying a flaw in the system. A lessons learned, If we don't have the tape at that moment where we have to make an immediate decision on plays that can be challenged at a critical juncture of the game (critical being the key word) and the opposition is doing everything it can to get the next play off, what do we do at that moment? imo, if it's not critical, we're less verklemped in letting the play go but if it's at a critical point in the game where field position, possession, we're behind in the score and time is running out , I'm now more verclemped in letting it go because the impact is now huge, so I call a timeout, have a player fake an injury (which I'm sure never happens) or throw the challenge flag. And as Forest Gump would say that's all I have to say about that.

Yep, just like all the other times O'Shea should have thrown the flag or called a time-out and didn't. The guy sleep-walks through these games having no clue what to do then stands before the media and blames the officials. You think the players don't notice this also? I just can't stomach any more of O'Shea and his mindless stares and stupid smirks. I wouldn't even mind all the losing so much if I didn't have to endure that loser. Really, you're judging him on that? His facial expressions. I'm giving him some flak on not throwing the challenge flag, but I would never assess him, cast my opinion on his ability as a CFL coach because of his facial or body mannerisms. The word silly and foolish has been thrown at me today, fair enough, but on the scale of silliness, that might be the benchmark.

I already qualified that with one of my posts above so thanks for the judgement. And your point about things going hundred miles per hour provides more evidence that if things were going to fast for our head coach (i.e., Calgary running up to the ball after the catch, no word from the spotter, no replay available, no word yea or nay from a player) you need to slow the game down at that point. How? With a challenge flag. Moreover, the logic I'm hearing here from some people is if you have no word from your sources (see my info in parenthesis above) and the opposition is wanting to hurry up to get the next play off, you simply let it happen because your info hasn't come in yet from a play you don't know yet if it was legit. It was at a crucial point in the game, I don't have my info to make a decision, I throw the challenge flag with the risk of losing a timeout. And this is why you'll never be a professional head coach. Seriously, you can find fault with O'Shea for a lot of things, but not throwing the challenge flag because he "thought that they were hurrying up when they shouldn't" is beyond silly. I guess you've never heard of a team speeding up to take advantage of momentum, because they thing that they've got the opposition on their heels? I have. Wow, thanks for the judgement, appreciate the feedback. Don't have to be a professional head coach to make assumptions. The assumption you just made was taking advantage of momentum (and having no other evidence at your disposal) that influences the decision in not throwing a challenge flag. Another assumption, equally valid, is Calgary, who should be trying to burn the clock but hurrying to the ball probably not wanting this play reviewed that can help me make a decision and at the very least slows their momentum which just addressed the assumption you made. Win win.

I don't know, you'd have to ask him and yes I am serious. It's late in the game, my opposition just made a circus catch that I didn't get a view on yet, my opposition is all of a sudden running hurry up to get on the ball quick when they should be taking their time so I need to slow things down now, what's at my disposal? Time out or challenge flag. I choose the challenge flag because the bonus is there's a chance it could be overturned based on Calgary not wanting it reviewed. Little bit more than a whim. You'll probably find that very few professional level coaches use "the force" to make critical decisions. I'm thinking that they rely a lot more on evidence, which O'Shea didn't have available to him at that particular moment. The other way to look at it was he made a decision, without any evidence, to let the play go. If he didn't have time to compile that evidence (Calgary rushing to the ball), you simply let it go? No, you use your options to have time to collect that evidence especially being how critical that play was and the time we had left in the game. Yes I risk losing a timeout, the flip side is I risk letting Calgary move up the field on a non legit play.

I already qualified that with one of my posts above so thanks for the judgement. And your point about things going hundred miles per hour provides more evidence that if things were going to fast for our head coach (i.e., Calgary running up to the ball after the catch, no word from the spotter, no replay available, no word yea or nay from a player) you need to slow the game down at that point. How? With a challenge flag. Moreover, the logic I'm hearing here from some people is if you have no word from your sources (see my info in parenthesis above) and the opposition is wanting to hurry up to get the next play off, you simply let it happen because your info hasn't come in yet from a play you don't know yet if it was legit. It was at a crucial point in the game, I don't have my info to make a decision, I throw the challenge flag with the risk of losing a timeout.

I don't know, you'd have to ask him and yes I am serious. It's late in the game, my opposition just made a circus catch that I didn't get a view on yet, my opposition is all of a sudden running hurry up to get on the ball quick when they should be taking their time so I need to slow things down now, what's at my disposal? Time out or challenge flag. I choose the challenge flag because the bonus is there's a chance it could be overturned based on Calgary not wanting it reviewed. Little bit more than a whim.