Captain Blue Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Also how come Montreal isn't being blasted for not having a head coach? I can imagine the media here would really be in a tizzy if the Bombers didn't have a coach in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 From Penton in Sun More hirings on horizon Mike O’Shea still has to hire three more assistants, and one of them will be a quarterbacks coach. The Bombers head coach will also be hiring assistants for the linebackers and offensive line to round out his nine-member staff. Most other CFL staffs are complete and already working together, although the Montreal Alouettes are still without a head coach. Great news that a QB coach is still part of the plan. Looks like no RB coach this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 From Penton in Sun More hirings on horizon Mike O’Shea still has to hire three more assistants, and one of them will be a quarterbacks coach. The Bombers head coach will also be hiring assistants for the linebackers and offensive line to round out his nine-member staff. Most other CFL staffs are complete and already working together, although the Montreal Alouettes are still without a head coach. Great news that a QB coach is still part of the plan. Looks like no RB coach this season. That would be a low totem pole priority for me. Here's the ball, now run for your life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I am guess will MB will take care of the RB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I never understand the CFL & the way teams assign assistant coaches. You'd think they'd have one of: quarterbacks, running backs, receivers, OL, DL, linebackers & dbs with an OC, DC & ST coordinators. As well as a strength & conditioning coach. That's 11 assistant coaches. Most CFL teams have 9 & some even have 10. To me, it makes no sense not to have every position covered. I know it's probably budgetary but with the new tv contract coming in now it's time to expand the coaching staffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doublezero Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I am guess will MB will take care of the RB's. MB's offences are heavily run-centric. And he's a former RB himself, if I recall. Definitely he will be able to help the backs and coach them up to learn 3-down ball on a wide field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Some teams don't have a qb coach, others do but don't have a lb coach... While others have both but not a rb coach. Seems it's up to the HC how he wants the positions covered. Every team is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 How did teams ever win a game when coaching staffs had 6 on them? The notion that there is a correlation between quality and quantity eludes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 How did teams ever win a game when coaching staffs had 6 on them? The notion that there is a correlation between quality and quantity eludes me. People worked harder and took more responsibility in the old days, the norm nowadays in the CFL is around 10 coaches on staff. Montreal needing 12 last season was a head scratcher and hiring Hawkins in the first place was an even bigger one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do or die Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 A truly exhaustive search and signing process, here........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 How did teams ever win a game when coaching staffs had 6 on them? The notion that there is a correlation between quality and quantity eludes me. Players paid more attention to what their head coach was telling them back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 How did teams ever win a game when coaching staffs had 6 on them? The notion that there is a correlation between quality and quantity eludes me. Six? How about 2. In Winnipeg, Bud Grant had Joe Zaleski & Johnny Michaels as his assistants. I'd think back in the 50's & 60's zone defenses were just coming in so the teams played mostly man coverage. On offense, I'm sure the Bombers had only 20 plays tops in their playbook. SIxty five per cent run. Ploen called his own plays. Two assistants could run things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That's exactly right Dr.CFL. As a former Head Coach, I can tell you that the more cooks you add to your kitchen the more potential there is for confusion. Whenever I was assembling a new staff I only built the staff as big as it needed to be to cover what I needed. If I had an OC with good experience as a QB coach then why not let him do both jobs and take away any potential for confusion. Same on defence or STs etc. People seem to think that a coordinator doesn't have the time to work with players on the fundamentals. That's just not true if he is committed. At any rate, I often (due to lack of volunteers, or volunteers taking vacation etc.) had myself, and assistants doing several tasks. With proper time management and commitment from both staff and players we were able to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That's exactly right Dr.CFL. As a former Head Coach, I can tell you that the more cooks you add to your kitchen the more potential there is for confusion. Whenever I was assembling a new staff I only built the staff as big as it needed to be to cover what I needed. If I had an OC with good experience as a QB coach then why not let him do both jobs and take away any potential for confusion. Same on defence or STs etc. People seem to think that a coordinator doesn't have the time to work with players on the fundamentals. That's just not true if he is committed. At any rate, I often (due to lack of volunteers, or volunteers taking vacation etc.) had myself, and assistants doing several tasks. With proper time management and commitment from both staff and players we were able to get it done. That does make sense except when you stop to consider that NFL teams carry 20 assistants yet the message on the good teams doesn't get muddled or confused. As far as preventing any confusion, it's up to the HC to make sure all lines of conmunication are clear & open. if there is confusion then he has to take responsibility for that. How can an OC who is busy calling plays & coordinating his offense on game day have the time needed to coach up his qbs or help them if they need it on the sidelines? He can't. Maybe if your qb is Ricky Ray he doesn't need any help but not Max Hall. Sad how the veteran Ray had a dedicated qb coach but the rookie Hall didn't. The most important position on the the team with 3 young qbs that had little or no playing experience & Tim Burke didn't think it was important enough to have a dedicated qb coach. Or perhaps it was Joe Mack who wouldn't let him hire one. We'll never know about that one. The Bombers always take the cheap route so it doesn't surprise me if Mack or BOD felt that they could get by with 1, 2 or 3 less coaches than anyone else just to save a few bucks. We can only hope those days are finally over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoman Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That's exactly right Dr.CFL. As a former Head Coach, I can tell you that the more cooks you add to your kitchen the more potential there is for confusion. Whenever I was assembling a new staff I only built the staff as big as it needed to be to cover what I needed. If I had an OC with good experience as a QB coach then why not let him do both jobs and take away any potential for confusion. Same on defence or STs etc. People seem to think that a coordinator doesn't have the time to work with players on the fundamentals. That's just not true if he is committed. At any rate, I often (due to lack of volunteers, or volunteers taking vacation etc.) had myself, and assistants doing several tasks. With proper time management and commitment from both staff and players we were able to get it done. That does make sense except when you stop to consider that NFL teams carry 20 assistants yet the message on the good teams doesn't get muddled or confused. As far as preventing any confusion, it's up to the HC to make sure all lines of conmunication are clear & open. if there is confusion then he has to take responsibility for that. How can an OC who is busy calling plays & coordinating his offense on game day have the time needed to coach up his qbs or help them if they need it on the sidelines? He can't. Maybe if your qb is Ricky Ray he doesn't need any help but not Max Hall. Sad how the veteran Ray had a dedicated qb coach but the rookie Hall didn't. The most important position on the the team with 3 young qbs that had little or no playing experience & Tim Burke didn't think it was important enough to have a dedicated qb coach. Or perhaps it was Joe Mack who wouldn't let him hire one. We'll never know about that one. The Bombers always take the cheap route so it doesn't surprise me if Mack or BOD felt that they could get by with 1, 2 or 3 less coaches than anyone else just to save a few bucks. We can only hope those days are finally over. Some coaches prefer as much as possible for the purpose of maintaining focus on game planning,etc... 2013 failures for the Blue had to do with the quality of coaches and not the quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_x Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a low totem pole priority for me. Here's the ball, now run for your life! First we NEED a RB... seeing as simpson and ford have not been re-signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a low totem pole priority for me. Here's the ball, now run for your life! First we NEED a RB... seeing as simpson and ford have not been re-signed. You can't seriously be worried that we're not going to find running backs...that's the easiest of all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_x Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a low totem pole priority for me. Here's the ball, now run for your life! First we NEED a RB... seeing as simpson and ford have not been re-signed. You can't seriously be worried that we're not going to find running backs...that's the easiest of all... Worried that we can fin a Rb? No. Worried we are going to find a great running back that can run out in the open, up the gut and can block? Yup. RB are easiest to find, but finding great RB isn't easy. Marshall 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueandgold Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a low totem pole priority for me. Here's the ball, now run for your life! First we NEED a RB... seeing as simpson and ford have not been re-signed. You can't seriously be worried that we're not going to find running backs...that's the easiest of all... Worried that we can fin a Rb? No. Worried we are going to find a great running back that can run out in the open, up the gut and can block? Yup. RB are easiest to find, but finding great RB isn't easy. Ford and Simpson aren't great running backs either. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebusrankin Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Since I was a young lad we have had: Reaves-Mimbs, Richardson-Bryant-WilliamsRoberts-Reid-Simpson as the more mainstay running backs. So in 30 years: That's two I'd put in the All-Time great category and 4 I'd put in the pretty darn good level. Not worried about running back. SPuDS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Until we actually find one, I'd be concerned. Since 1971 we've had Don Jonas, Dieter Brock, Tom Clements, Tom Burgess, Matt Dunigan, Khari Jones & Kevin Glenn but nothing since. if this was 2007 we'd be saying we can easily find a qb. Nothing's a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Until we actually find one, I'd be concerned. Since 1971 we've had Don Jonas, Dieter Brock, Tom Clements, Tom Burgess, Matt Dunigan, Khari Jones & Kevin Glenn but nothing since. if this was 2007 we'd be saying we can easily find a qb. Nothing's a given. Considering nearly every team has found multiple rbs over the course of the last 20 years I don't get your point? Even when we had guys like Bernard they still managed to get 5 yards a carry. Just think... when was the last time you have seen any CFL team struggle to find a starting rb?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Like I said nothing's a given. You just can't expect it. Sure you may find a running back eventually but that doesn't mean you'll find one every year. Our backs last year didn't light a lot of fires. Before Kory Sheets the Riders running back situation wasn't great. It was just okay. Edmonton didn't have much of a running game last year. I'm just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Like I said nothing's a given. You just can't expect it. Sure you may find a running back eventually but that doesn't mean you'll find one every year. Our backs last year didn't light a lot of fires. Before Kory Sheets the Riders running back situation wasn't great. It was just okay. Edmonton didn't have much of a running game last year. I'm just sayin'... Edmonton was so unhappy with their running game they signed their RB to a shiny new expensive contract. The Riders were happy with Cates before Sheets and weren't looking for a new RB. Don't confuse a team settling for mediocrity with them being unable to upgrade. Improving your ground game can't happen if you're not looking. Our backs last year didn't light a lot of fires because our starter was injured for most of the season, our backup was also nicked up, and we were rarely in a position where we didn't have to abandon the run game early in the game. RBs are a dime a dozen if you're looking. Can they be immediately found? Maybe...maybe not. It is likely the easiest position to recruit for though because there is not much adjustment needed between our game and theirs. If you can run well in NCAA, or NFL the chances are high you can run well here, We may have to go through 2 or 3 before we find the right fit. However, I don't think there is much chance we will not have a very good running back by mid season of this year, Unlike a lot of other positions, there is a lot more quality supply then there is demand. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Until we actually find one, I'd be concerned. Since 1971 we've had Don Jonas, Dieter Brock, Tom Clements, Tom Burgess, Matt Dunigan, Khari Jones & Kevin Glenn but nothing since. if this was 2007 we'd be saying we can easily find a qb. Nothing's a given. were talking about how easy it is to find running backs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now