KptKrunch

We went for several 3rd downs when clearly Lapo/Burke would of cowered and went for the pun/fg.
 
This team looked WAAAAAAAAY more prepared then anything we saw in the last 3 years.  
 
Very little penalties on our part... guys seemed focus.
 
Didn't see any stupid Swaggerville like idiot players dancing around or getting over emotional.
 
Toronto had giant cue cards with Tubas???  We did not...
 
The team made adjustments after Toronto started coming back.....   
 
Barely any 2 and outs and no designed plays on 2nd and long which were designed to only gain 2 yards....
 
Huge difference from last year!

I felt kinda bad for him (not really). Problem here though wasn't the 'scheme', but the execution (not player execution). He's got  a lot of new players there and no one expected much (especially Burke). But......... TONE TONE TONE. Remember last year, on Our Bombers - I freaked first on the two loser QB's we brought in, then I freaked on our exhibition games. I mean, first game we went over half field what, three times? Getting ONE field goal - against backups and training camp fodder. Then the following week, before the game the exulted (eh unknown poster) Tim Burke boasts to the media how in the Hamilton game we'll be whipped. 52 to 0 in an exhibition match is a joke. Nice tone to set sir!
 
So lets fast forward to this year - what was/has/is Mike O'Shea saying? Any concerns? NO . Who's starting? THEY'RE ALL STARTERS. What's keeping you up at night? NOTHING
Tim Burke
"Our defense is a work in progress?" 

Tell me - who would you go to the wall for? Who inspires confidence in you? So yes, a lot of new players. Bombers have a lot of new players. The coach (and coordinators) are paid to 'lead' them. Burke leads his players to the bus, and puts them under it. And that's what we saw tonight - a defense who didn't believe in themselves because their coach doesn't. You need to remember people, the guys you see on the field - they have been playing ball all their lives. These aren't guys off the street. They need organisation and leadership first and foremost. If they don't have that - they don't stand a chance no matter how talented they are. 
 
On the flip side, we saw a confident group of Bomber players who even when something bad happened (like the Willy INT) they bounced right back. 
 
So Tim Burke, you got exactly what you deserved tonight, just like you got exactly what you deserved last year. 

I actually like his attitude of having '42' starters. I mean, Burgess, look at it this way, you got Offense, you have defense, and you have Special Teams. Or do you not consider someone starting on 'special teams' a starter. I sure do. Now, still doing the math, that's '36' and we know there are players who 'start' on two of the three teams all over the place. But, there are injuries, there are rest breaks (for lineman especially). So when a player goes in to sub for an injury, or to give a player a rest, is he not 'starting' at that point.
 
No, he may not be on the field for the opening snap, but riddle me this, opening snap, the Bombers run a play with 6 receivers and an empty backfield. Now assuming (from the depth chart) that Ford is the 'starting tailback' but is not on the field for the 'opening snap', is he now, in your eyes, not a starter? Just because you're on not on the field for the first play doesn't mean you're not a 'starter'.
 
To me, all that O'Shea is saying is that if you're dressing for the game, you prepare for that game like you're a starter because I expect you to play like one if I need you. That's a big attitude shift and since neither you nor I have ever played Pro football, and O'Shea has, he could very well see his squad this way, and treat them this way. If I were the 42nd man, I can tell you personally I'd appreciate that kind of attitude from my coach very much. 

I actually like his attitude of having '42' starters. I mean, Burgess, look at it this way, you got Offense, you have defense, and you have Special Teams. Or do you not consider someone starting on 'special teams' a starter. I sure do. Now, still doing the math, that's '36' and we know there are players who 'start' on two of the three teams all over the place. But, there are injuries, there are rest breaks (for lineman especially). So when a player goes in to sub for an injury, or to give a player a rest, is he not 'starting' at that point.
 
No, he may not be on the field for the opening snap, but riddle me this, opening snap, the Bombers run a play with 6 receivers and an empty backfield. Now assuming (from the depth chart) that Ford is the 'starting tailback' but is not on the field for the 'opening snap', is he now, in your eyes, not a starter? Just because you're on not on the field for the first play doesn't mean you're not a 'starter'.
 
To me, all that O'Shea is saying is that if you're dressing for the game, you prepare for that game like you're a starter because I expect you to play like one if I need you. That's a big attitude shift and since neither you nor I have ever played Pro football, and O'Shea has, he could very well see his squad this way, and treat them this way. If I were the 42nd man, I can tell you personally I'd appreciate that kind of attitude from my coach very much. 

You sure about that? He doesn't understand the offense remember? 

Here's the thing Unknown Poster, Burke has no leadership qualities about him, none. If you think he does, give me some examples. I can give you a thousand examples of why he doesn't, I doubt you can give me one example of a leadership quality about him. As the head coach, it's HIS FREAKING SHOW. Don't you understand that at all? Have you not comprehended what a head coach does? He makes the 'final decisions', he 'sets the tone' for the players. 
 
Tell, what tone did he set? Please. I'd really like to hear your answer here. Think about it first, and be honest. And lets think back to the Goltz fiasco, when he announced him as the starter for the rest of the year, then 10 days later said he wasn't and said it was the "offense's decision". Does that sound like a leader to you? Does that sound like someone who is taking charge. 
Tim Burke is a damn good DC, no argument there. He can sit back, work on defensive schemes, and then call defenses for various situations. But he can't make decisions outside of that, and he proved it time and time again. As a head coach he was in way over his head. The teams record has nothing to do with it. The 'talent' has nothing to do with it. The issue was the overall attitude of the team, which takes on the personality of the Head Coach. Tell me, how many games last year did the bombers 'compete' in? I'll tell you if don't know  - ONE - the banjo bowl. The other two wins they got was a result of Montreal playing worse than us, not because we played 'better' because we played bad in those games too. 
 
I can't understand how you can defend him. Now, if Burke had said, in that interview, that he was in over his head, and didn't have the personal experience to run a team in that situation, and that ultimately what happens on the field rests with him, then I'd have gained some respect back. But I lost all my respect for him last year given how he never took responsibility for anything. So this article doesn't change how I feel.

Here's the thing Unknown Poster, Burke has no leadership qualities about him, none. If you think he does, give me some examples. I can give you a thousand examples of why he doesn't, I doubt you can give me one example of a leadership quality about him. As the head coach, it's HIS FREAKING SHOW. Don't you understand that at all? Have you not comprehended what a head coach does? He makes the 'final decisions', he 'sets the tone' for the players. 
 
Tell, what tone did he set? Please. I'd really like to hear your answer here. Think about it first, and be honest. And lets think back to the Goltz fiasco, when he announced him as the starter for the rest of the year, then 10 days later said he wasn't and said it was the "offense's decision". Does that sound like a leader to you? Does that sound like someone who is taking charge. 
Tim Burke is a damn good DC, no argument there. He can sit back, work on defensive schemes, and then call defenses for various situations. But he can't make decisions outside of that, and he proved it time and time again. As a head coach he was in way over his head. The teams record has nothing to do with it. The 'talent' has nothing to do with it. The issue was the overall attitude of the team, which takes on the personality of the Head Coach. Tell me, how many games last year did the bombers 'compete' in? I'll tell you if don't know  - ONE - the banjo bowl. The other two wins they got was a result of Montreal playing worse than us, not because we played 'better' because we played bad in those games too. 
 
I can't understand how you can defend him. Now, if Burke had said, in that interview, that he was in over his head, and didn't have the personal experience to run a team in that situation, and that ultimately what happens on the field rests with him, then I'd have gained some respect back. But I lost all my respect for him last year given how he never took responsibility for anything. So this article doesn't change how I feel.

I'm surprised no one has had a "talk" with Burke yet to explain how stupid he looks by constantly throwing his players under the bus and blaming everyone but himself. He takes zero responsibility. He just doesn't get it.
He's never getting another head coaching opportunity. Book it.

Well I'll bet he's on the 'police watch list'

Well, here's what I think. You're out all day, running around, doing whatever. You get home, and you got some cramping. So, you go to the bathroom. How would you like it if you had an audience in there watching you and asking you questions? I, personally, never liked the 'locker room' thing. I think it's an invasion of privacy. Football players are human beings, just like us, and as such they deserve to have some place of 'sanctuary', whether it's to blow off steam, settle a disagreement with another player, or just sit quietly and comtemplate without having someone in your face. That's why they invented and they have 'media' rooms. That's why, at home, we have 'great rooms, Kitchens, etc. 
 
I wish all sports teams would take this stand. Only time I want to see inside the 'room' is when you're with them celebrating a 'championship'. Otherwise, wait in the 'media' room. 
 
I would like a 'time limit' though. In other words - 30 minutes after a game there must be someone in the media room to address the media. Coach for sure, and a list of players, provided by the 'media', whom they'd like to speak with (so the coaches can't censor the message).
 
That, I believe, would be 'fair' to all involved. The media still gets their quotes, and the players get their 'sanctuary'. A win/win 

No iso i'm basing it on the way he impressed at the free agent camp in Florida and from members here who have been going to tc everyday and extolling his virtues. Then I saw a guy come into the game in the last two minutes and look like he's been there before. So I'll throw back at you what you did to me - why do you hate Marve?

hmmmm iso, you're not reading again. Please re-read what I bolded....  see it above? Does it say, anywhere, #2? Does it say 'backup'? No, its says 'groom". As in practice roster, or 3rd string even. The backup job will be fought out by Hall/Brohm. As it stands (and as I said in another post) I doubt any QB will get cut ...... yet. And since you like reading things that aren't there, I shall expand a bit on that for you. Groom, as in Troy Kopp, TJ Rubley, Justin Goltz, Tee Martin, etc. etc. etc. - Marve is the FIRST one I've seen in a long time that is what I feel is worth the effort to groom. 
Are we good now? 

Well Crompton wasn't any good either. For the Eskimo Qb's I'd rank them
 
1. Reilly (man I wish Joe Dufus had gone after him)
2. Nichols (yeah BBlink - I hear ya. he's a good kid and competes very hard just had some bad luck he's a #1 in this league if he could stay healthy, more talented than ole Buck)
3. Harris (did you guys miss that pass he threw for about 60 yards with a flick of his wrist  -not his fault there was a penalty on this play, he's still green but he has all the tools)
4. White (barely ahead of)
5. Crompton -very disappointed in his showing. Looks like he regressed but he'll get one more kick at it - White will be released for sure. 
 
As for B.C.
 
1. Kevin (Dangerfield) Glenn
2. Partridge
3. Beck (he'll be on the same flight as Pat White back to the good ole US of A 

New stadium looks nice - and seriously Peggar? They (bombers) do realize how little revenue they'll generate from raccoon s, right?

I agree - I used up all my anti-Mack rants at OB - but admittedly I was doing it when he was still in office and he had a lot of supporters here..umm there (OB) I mean. He's gone now and maybe the odd time I might mention him, but frankly I'm just happy we got some people now that have some football sense running the club now in Miller and Walters. Like what I see in O'Shea too. The fact they are willing to cut bait with a useless tub o lard like Pencer is (from what I'm reading here anyway) is good. Why keep him around taking valuable reps away from players like Goosen. Pencer, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Maybe go ride shotgun for Braidwood.

wow - great game. We lost but HUGE improvement from that dud we played last year against them. Marve was the best player I thought, though he came in when we were pushing he came in cold and looked like he had been playing the whole game. Willy impressed too. Hall..... you all know how I felt about that bum from last year at the other place, though he surprised me (last year). Brohm - I wouldn't write him off just yet. I think Marve,unless he lays a big egg, should be #2. 
 
Defense - didn't look great but had a couple of big takeaways. 
 
Special teams - one break down but otherwise I thought were solid.
 
Overall - a very solid effort. I think I'll be enjoying football again this summer.

Hey, someone on here gets it. What I said a few times - there'll be no strike. When was the last time any of you heard of a 'minor league' go on strike. I never have. Now it is a bit difference because we are an independent league, but the bottom line is these guys all want to play in the NFL or they just want to play and this is their part time gig (like Lacrosse players). So striking for them does nothing, and in the end the owners will win no matter what, or the league will fold. Either way, NFL hopefuls lose another road to get there, and the guys that play for the love of the game lose that. 
 
I said no missed regular season games. My bet is the owners told the PA that for every dime lost on pre-season games, that's how much their offer would go down by before the players agreed to it. If you're a player, what are you going to do. That plus what I bolded above - owners have all the cards

Hey, someone on here gets it. What I said a few times - there'll be no strike. When was the last time any of you heard of a 'minor league' go on strike. I never have. Now it is a bit difference because we are an independent league, but the bottom line is these guys all want to play in the NFL or they just want to play and this is their part time gig (like Lacrosse players). So striking for them does nothing, and in the end the owners will win no matter what, or the league will fold. Either way, NFL hopefuls lose another road to get there, and the guys that play for the love of the game lose that. 
 
I said no missed regular season games. My bet is the owners told the PA that for every dime lost on pre-season games, that's how much their offer would go down by before the players agreed to it. If you're a player, what are you going to do. That plus what I bolded above - owners have all the cards

Ottawa - face it boys, I've whined about this before too, many times. When expanding, the CFL also needs to 'expand' the imports. By not changing the ratio you really water down the league as there just aren't enough Canadians of good quality to fill all the jobs. 
 
I'd argue there isn't enough for 8 teams - just look at how pathetic we were with our Canuck talent last year. You think it's bad now - wait till the 10th team arrives. 

Ottawa - face it boys, I've whined about this before too, many times. When expanding, the CFL also needs to 'expand' the imports. By not changing the ratio you really water down the league as there just aren't enough Canadians of good quality to fill all the jobs. 
 
I'd argue there isn't enough for 8 teams - just look at how pathetic we were with our Canuck talent last year. You think it's bad now - wait till the 10th team arrives. 

Ottawa - face it boys, I've whined about this before too, many times. When expanding, the CFL also needs to 'expand' the imports. By not changing the ratio you really water down the league as there just aren't enough Canadians of good quality to fill all the jobs. 
 
I'd argue there isn't enough for 8 teams - just look at how pathetic we were with our Canuck talent last year. You think it's bad now - wait till the 10th team arrives.