If you haven't read the article ...

 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/09/12/burke-on-eskimos-gm-hervey-dont-drag-anybody-through-the-junk

 

 

“I don’t think you should drag anybody through the junk,” he said.

 

“Obviously sometimes you can figure out who we’re talking about, like when a DB gets beat on a touchdown. And obviously when you’re talking about the quarterback, we all know who it is.

 

“But to actually point somebody out and say this guy’s playing like crap, I don’t think you should do that.”

 

All I have to say is ... is he serious? I mean, I totally agree but for Burke to say this stuff about Hervey after some of the comments he's made about guys like Washington, Elliott, etc is pretty hypocritical in my opinion.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

I think in this day and age the Head Coach has a responsibility to be honest with the paying fan.  I think theres a difference between what Hervey did (he completely burried his player) and what Burke usually does in holding his players accountable.  And I think it's because he respects his players and they respect him that he does it. 

Burke is a goof we've known that for a while now. Hell of a defensive coordinator, but as a head coach no where near ready. 

I think in this day and age the Head Coach has a responsibility to be honest with the paying fan.  I think theres a difference between what Hervey did (he completely burried his player) and what Burke usually does in holding his players accountable.  And I think it's because he respects his players and they respect him that he does it. 

 

You don't think saying things like "Demond Washington will never return punts for us again" or calling one of his quarterbacks a "turnover machine" is burying a guy?

Burke seems to lack a filter on his thoughts when he has to think on his feet.  It seems he isn't able to assess the consequences of what he says before he says it.  

 

The biggest difference, not that I'm excusing Burke, is Burke's comments are made immediately after a game.   Wasn't Hervey's the day after?

Yeah and even in the heat of the moment Burke does usually refrain from throwing individuals totally under the bus, just there are some times when he does throw guys under. 

 

I think in this day and age the Head Coach has a responsibility to be honest with the paying fan.  I think theres a difference between what Hervey did (he completely burried his player) and what Burke usually does in holding his players accountable.  And I think it's because he respects his players and they respect him that he does it. 

 

You don't think saying things like "Demond Washington will never return punts for us again" or calling one of his quarterbacks a "turnover machine" is burying a guy?

 

 

Fair point but the difference is that Burke was asked about those guys, and everyone knew they had played poorly.  There's no covering up a returner fumbling twice or a QB throwing multiple redzone interceptions.  Nobody asked Hervey about Rottier and the average fan probably has no idea whether Rottier played poorly in relation to the rest of the offensive line.  Hervey made a point of singling out Rottier when no one had ever asked about him.

 

Not trying to excuse Burke here, just pointing out the difference between the two situations.

 

 

I think in this day and age the Head Coach has a responsibility to be honest with the paying fan.  I think theres a difference between what Hervey did (he completely burried his player) and what Burke usually does in holding his players accountable.  And I think it's because he respects his players and they respect him that he does it. 

 

You don't think saying things like "Demond Washington will never return punts for us again" or calling one of his quarterbacks a "turnover machine" is burying a guy?

 

 

Fair point but the difference is that Burke was asked about those guys, and everyone knew they had played poorly.  There's no covering up a returner fumbling twice or a QB throwing multiple redzone interceptions.  Nobody asked Hervey about Rottier and the average fan probably has no idea whether Rottier played poorly in relation to the rest of the offensive line.  Hervey made a point of singling out Rottier when no one had ever asked about him.

 

Not trying to excuse Burke here, just pointing out the difference between the two situations.

 

 

Personally, I'd probably prefer seeing a coach who is willing to say a player needs to perform better but avoids making statements like "player x will never fill this role again" or labeling them with titles like "turnover machine", "pylon", etc in public.

I think Burke speaks in public the way he speaks in private.  But he is accountable for his words too.  Recall when he said he'd cut Dan West "right now if I could" and then later apologized for the emotional outburst.

 

I think calling a QB a turnover machine when he *is* a turnover machine is a factual statement about the play of that player at that time.  And I dont think it's malicious.  You can tell intent when you listen to a person speak.  Reading their words removes context and intent.  If I write "Mike is very intelligent" that sounds like a compliment but if you hear me say it, the intent could easily be a sarcastic insult (ofcourse Im not being sarcastic though...just an example).

 

I think burke could be a very good Head Coach but what he's had to work with makes it impossible to know yet.

I think burke could be a very good Head Coach but what he's had to work with makes it impossible to know yet.

 

No he's worse than the team around him as a head coach. He is a smart guy and might eventually wind up as a good head coach, but he's nowhere near ready for it now and he does some real puzzling things as a head coach and doesn't seem able to rally the troops. Let's not forget that his record as a head coach is 6-14 which is not good by any stretch of the imagination and many of those losses have been absolute blow outs. The blowouts didn't start happening until Burke took over mind you. Prior to that the team may have lost, but it was at least competitive which is a damned good indication of Burkes limitations as a head coach. 

The fact that Burke can't identify that he did very similar 'vilifying' himself tells me a lot.

Burke's 'heat of the moment' spouting is not as calculated as Hervey's but is still worthy of a 'shudder'.

I like Rich's filter comment. (speak first, too fast = oops)

Maybe it's time for Coach Burke to change that filter or at least get it washed.

I'm still undecided on Burke as a head coach, but I wanna say that this stuff about how we can't judge him because the team around him is so shitty....that's bullshit. Lawless wants to make it sound like it's a joke of a roster and Burke's had nothing to work with. I don't buy that at all. Sure, the QB situation needs to be fixed but there's still a lot of talent there. 

If you haven't read the article ...

 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/09/12/burke-on-eskimos-gm-hervey-dont-drag-anybody-through-the-junk

 

 

“I don’t think you should drag anybody through the junk,” he said.

 

“Obviously sometimes you can figure out who we’re talking about, like when a DB gets beat on a touchdown. And obviously when you’re talking about the quarterback, we all know who it is.

 

“But to actually point somebody out and say this guy’s playing like crap, I don’t think you should do that.”

 

All I have to say is ... is he serious? I mean, I totally agree but for Burke to say this stuff about Hervey after some of the comments he's made about guys like Washington, Elliott, etc is pretty hypocritical in my opinion.

 

Thoughts?

 

What would you have him say in reponse to the question "Your thoughts on Ed Hervey's comments?" then? Would you have wanted him to say "You know, probably not a good idea to say those things, but who am I to say that, since I called out players myself." Or would you want him to say something along the lines of "I'm not touching that." You know, like he did, the first time he was asked about that.

 

And I believe Burke's exact quote re: Washington was "Demond Washington will not be returning punts from now on." Yep, threw him right under the bus. And the "turnover machine" quote was as follows: "If guys are perennial turnover machines then they can’t be put in that position to play". After a game that Elliott threw 4 interceptions AND Brink lost a fumble. QBs can't be turnover machines. NOT Elliott is a turnover machine.

 

This is just like the "Goltz to be starter for the rest of the season" when Burke's exact words were "Goltz is our starter going forward".

Uhh Burke is the Head Coach, Hervey is management. There is a huge difference. 

I'm still undecided on Burke as a head coach, but I wanna say that this stuff about how we can't judge him because the team around him is so shitty....that's bullshit. Lawless wants to make it sound like it's a joke of a roster and Burke's had nothing to work with. I don't buy that at all. Sure, the QB situation needs to be fixed but there's still a lot of talent there. 

Games like the one the defense played against Montreal and the one last weekend against Saskatchewan don't happen with a roster lacking talent. When the defense shows that they can play at that high a level and they don't do it consistently and have games where they look terrible that to me falls at the feet of the coaches. Maybe they're lacking some talent on the offensive side of the ball in some areas, but the ups and downs of the defense to me is about coaching moreso than the players because we've seen the defense play at such a high level. 

I'm no Burke fan, but I'd say that the Banjo Bowl was the first game I've seen this year of Burke out-coaching his opposition.  He and his staff had a great defensive game plan, and at half time, finally, they made some adjustments to the offence that had a positive effect in the third quarter.  Meanwhile, Chamblin left Durant in far too long I thought, as it was obvious that Durant had checked out mentally and was just in survival mode by the fourth quarter.  He was completely ineffective.  And Chamblin's two challenges were both really dumb, I thought.  They weren't even close.  Anyway, I don't expect this out-coaching the opposition trend to last too much longer, though I think it won't take much to out-coach Kavis Reed.  If Reed out-coaches our staff in the next two games, then heads should roll.  The next two games should really show us who is the weaker head coach, Burke or Reed, as right now, in my mind it's still a pretty close race.

 

Thoughts?

I think you're looking too hard for reasons to complain about Burke. He's the coach, so of course he's going to have to comment on his players. He's rough around the edges, but I don't know if anything he's said is going too far.

 

Your being an Elliott fan is, IMO, why you're still worked up about that comment.

I'm no Burke fan, but I'd say that the Banjo Bowl was the first game I've seen this year of Burke out-coaching his opposition.  He and his staff had a great defensive game plan, and at half time, finally, they made some adjustments to the offence that had a positive effect in the third quarter.  Meanwhile, Chamblin left Durant in far too long I thought, as it was obvious that Durant had checked out mentally and was just in survival mode by the fourth quarter.  He was completely ineffective.  And Chamblin's two challenges were both really dumb, I thought.  They weren't even close.  Anyway, I don't expect this out-coaching the opposition trend to last too much longer, though I think it won't take much to out-coach Kavis Reed.  If Reed out-coaches our staff in the next two games, then heads should roll.  The next two games should really show us who is the weaker head coach, Burke or Reed, as right now, in my mind it's still a pretty close race.

Was thinking the same thing last night.

Personally, I couldn't care less what a coach says about the players as long as it's true.  Elliott was a turnover machine and Washington did drop the ball too much and Burke didn't have him returning punts for the rest of the year (IIRC).  

 

I also don't care what Hervey said.  He was just being honest with the press, which I like.

 

This whole 'Throwing the players under the bus' is way overblown IMHO.  The players are adults.  They know when they have been playing well and they know when they have been playing badly.  They should know what their bosses think about them anyways.  It's likely not the first time they have heard the comments that they see in print.  They chose a public life, so they sometimes get a public dressing down.  It comes with the territory.

 

As for Burke's comments on Hervey... Pot meet kettle. 

Personally, I couldn't care less what a coach says about the players as long as it's true.  Elliott was a turnover machine and Washington did drop the ball too much and Burke didn't have him returning punts for the rest of the year (IIRC).  

 

I also don't care what Hervey said.  He was just being honest with the press, which I like.

 

This whole 'Throwing the players under the bus' is way overblown IMHO.  The players are adults.  They know when they have been playing well and they know when they have been playing badly.  They should know what their bosses think about them anyways.  It's likely not the first time they have heard the comments that they see in print.  They chose a public life, so they sometimes get a public dressing down.  It comes with the territory.

 

As for Burke's comments on Hervey... Pot meet kettle. 

 

I disagree.  Coaches and management shouldn't be throwing players under the bus with the media.  Team meetings, one on one conversations, all that stuff is when to call a player out when he sucks.  Doing it in public to other people is not the way to foster trust and respect from your team.  There is being honest and then there is being stupid.

 

I know sports isn't a one to one comparison to the "real" world, but could you imagine if you screwed up at work, and rather then tell you to your face, your boss sent out an email to everyone in the company calling you out and berating you.  Do you think you would still have respect for that boss,.  Do you think your performance at work would go up or down?  Would you be looking for another job?

 

The best coaches / organizations are the ones who not only understand the game, but are the ones that can inspire and motivate their players to be their best.  They foster a positive atmosphere in the dressing room and with the players that promotes winning and confidence.  That doesn't happen when they don't trust you because they read in the paper about how much you think they suck.

I think the Banjo Bowl was a good example of what a Burke-led team could do if given time.  But it also shows that Creehan likely has to go.  One can assume (I believe it was stated during the practice week) that Burke took a more hands-on approach with the D.  And look what we got.  No doubt, Burke is a great D.C.

 

Improve the O line, find a QB and an OC that isn't terrible and this team can likely compete every game with Tim Burke as Head Coach.

 

 

Thoughts?

I think you're looking too hard for reasons to complain about Burke. He's the coach, so of course he's going to have to comment on his players. He's rough around the edges, but I don't know if anything he's said is going too far.

 

Your being an Elliott fan is, IMO, why you're still worked up about that comment.

 

 

 

 

Thoughts?

I think you're looking too hard for reasons to complain about Burke. He's the coach, so of course he's going to have to comment on his players. He's rough around the edges, but I don't know if anything he's said is going too far.

 

Your being an Elliott fan is, IMO, why you're still worked up about that comment.

 

 

 

Maybe, but I didn't like it when he told the media he'd cut Dan West if they had a replacement for him either. And I'm not exactly lining up to buy a Dan West jersey.

I think the Banjo Bowl was a good example of what a Burke-led team could do if given time.  But it also shows that Creehan likely has to go.  One can assume (I believe it was stated during the practice week) that Burke took a more hands-on approach with the D.  And look what we got.  No doubt, Burke is a great D.C.

 

Improve the O line, find a QB and an OC that isn't terrible and this team can likely compete every game with Tim Burke as Head Coach.

Difficulty: Tim Burke built this coaching staff that failed so hard.

 

I think the Banjo Bowl was a good example of what a Burke-led team could do if given time.  But it also shows that Creehan likely has to go.  One can assume (I believe it was stated during the practice week) that Burke took a more hands-on approach with the D.  And look what we got.  No doubt, Burke is a great D.C.

 

Improve the O line, find a QB and an OC that isn't terrible and this team can likely compete every game with Tim Burke as Head Coach.

Difficulty: Tim Burke built this coaching staff that failed so hard.

 

 

Sometimes, it sure seems like your arguments are more about clearing Mack of any wrong-doing as opposed to the topic at hand.  That said, I go out of my way to skewer Sleepy Joe so, hey...

 

And anyway, why is Burke talking about Rottier at all...  just get ready for the game already.

Burke hired Crowten?  Oh I didnt know that.  *sarcasm*

Burke hired Crowten?  Oh I didnt know that.  *sarcasm*

He retained him, same thing as hiring him. Remember the "Gary could be a real good head coach in the CFL" quote? That was Burke talking about Crowton. He hired Casey Creehan,