Nice piece by Darren Cameron.  Buck was a frustrating football player but a great person who has made an investment in the community. 

 

http://www.bluebombers.com/article/blog-buck-pierce-the-player-the-coach-the-man

 

Enjoy!

 

 

Right, which is why I said above, was it Buck or was it Grigsby that was the problem?  Even I lean more towards Grigsby being the issue, but still.  

 

I think people are just thinking Buck is this magical creature that's going to fix all the problems of this team and want to promote him way too fast.  He still has a lot to learn and a long way to go before even becoming an OC.  And as much as I hated him as a player, if he can become a good coach, then by all means, keep him on.  I just hate this fixation on him that he's some kind of savior and super totally awesome coach to be, when no one here really knows what he can or can't do.

 

 

I think you're extrapolating other's posts to strengthen your point... no one here has suggested he's a magical figure and will save the franchise... no one here has said he should be our OC or our HC today... I think there was only one or two suggestions that he should be the QBC today....

 

The basic jist of the Buck love is.... he's a great guy for the team and for the community and we hope he turns out to be a great coach someday... At least that's how I feel...

 

The article was about Buck Pierce the "man" not the football player.  It demonstrates his big heart and compassion for others.  Regardless of what he did on the field, you can't help but admire the man he is and how he treats others.  

 

On the reverse we hold high so many professional athletes that had hall of fame careers but off the field they were real a$$holes.  Slagging Buck because his football career didn't meet your expectations.  Just shows the kind of person you are.  

Yes, because slagging one person shows exactly what kind of person any of us is.  And if you were talking about me, I didn't slag him, I said I couldn't stand him as a Bomber.  I never said he was crap.  Just like myself and others wouldn't like Hank or Tate as a Bomber.

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

Buck needs to coach qbs. For more than a season or two before he can be an OC. He also needs to realize that if he is going to rise in the coaching world then he has to coach under different coordinators as well as different organizations to gain the experience he needs. So, in order to become a better  coach he'll have to leave. I'd be shocked if he doesn't already know that.

Buck needs to coach qbs. For more than a season or two before he can be an OC. He also needs to realize that if he is going to rise in the coaching world then he has to coach under different coordinators as well as different organizations to gain the experience he needs. So, in order to become a better  coach he'll have to leave. I'd be shocked if he doesn't already know that.

Disagree he needs to coach QB's. He worked with QB's his entire career considering the relationship starters have with their back-ups and OC's in formulating a game plan. He'll coach the QB's when he's moved up the ranks.

 

The bolded and underlined part of your statement....Based on what?

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Is there a team in the league that has a former rb as their rb coach? Some teams don't even have a rb coach, or others where it's a part time job.

 

 

The article was about Buck Pierce the "man" not the football player.  It demonstrates his big heart and compassion for others.  Regardless of what he did on the field, you can't help but admire the man he is and how he treats others.  

 

On the reverse we hold high so many professional athletes that had hall of fame careers but off the field they were real a$$holes.  Slagging Buck because his football career didn't meet your expectations.  Just shows the kind of person you are.  

Yes, because slagging one person shows exactly what kind of person any of us is.  And if you were talking about me, I didn't slag him, I said I couldn't stand him as a Bomber.  I never said he was crap.  Just like myself and others wouldn't like Hank or Tate as a Bomber.

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Neither did Dave Dickenson, and he was in that role for the Stampeders in 2009. There's a reason the Bombers consider the running back coach as an entry level position - Because it is one.

 

Other examples of former players coaching positions they never played - Jason Maas as the receivers coach in Toronto in 2013, Marcus Brady in 2009 as the Als receivers coach, Corey Grant is currently Hamiton's running back coach after a career of playing receiver, Joe Paopao spent this past season as the Lions receivers coach, and Kelly Bates spent this past season as the Lions running backs coach.

 

There are obviously many examples of players coaching positions they never played. Just because a player didn't play a given position doesn't mean they don't know what's required of said position.

 

Buck is working his way up the ladder. He'll get to those positions, but right now he is where he should be considering he's just starting coaching.

Thanks for posting that, what an awesome human being.

 

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Is there a team in the league that has a former rb as their rb coach? Some teams don't even have a rb coach, or others where it's a part time job.

 

Some. Avon Cobourne is the Riders RB coach.

 

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Is there a team in the league that has a former rb as their rb coach? Some teams don't even have a rb coach, or others where it's a part time job.

 

That's the problem with the CFL. They just minimize the importance of coaching at some positions. Why is a running back coach entry level but coaching linebackers isn't? Or why do you need a receivers coach but not a qb coach? Darian Durant said publicly that he needs a qb coach. We saw that in Winnipeg before Drew Willy was here as we had no qb coach. 

Buck Pierce was tearing it up for us in early 2010. Highlight after highlight: bombs to Terrance, long TD runs on broken plays. If he somehow could have maintained that level of play and stayed on the field he would've been a Bomber legend.

I hated seeing him break down, seeing how cruel the game was to him, and seeing how Mack and Burke kept turning back to him time after time. And I was happy to see the Winnipeg fans give him a standing O during his swan song with the Lions. I'll always root for the guy.

Re: Grigsby, his game did evolve as he played for us. He started to minimize the backfield dancing, he started picking and hitting the right holes, but he never figured out how to survive contact. He didn't get to where I wanted him to be, but he definitely progressed. Someone was coaching him up.

 

 

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Is there a team in the league that has a former rb as their rb coach? Some teams don't even have a rb coach, or others where it's a part time job.

 

That's the problem with the CFL. They just minimize the importance of coaching at some positions. Why is a running back coach entry level but coaching linebackers isn't? Or why do you need a receivers coach but not a qb coach? Darian Durant said publicly that he needs a qb coach. We saw that in Winnipeg before Drew Willy was here as we had no qb coach. 

 

 

What position would you like to have new coaches start in?   You can't always get guys with experience and it really isn't realistic to expect former players to start their coaching in the CIS and work their way up.

 

Those positional coaches are entry level positions, wasn't that long ago teams didn't even have them.  I'm sure these players go to coaching conferences and techniques in the off season instead of trading.  They take their direction from the coordinators on what they want done or how they want the position run.  They just need to execute on the direction, spend time one on one as the coordinators don't have the time to do it.

If you are looking for an example of the kind of player or coach that the Bombers want to employ in their organization, look no further than this guy, Buck pierce.

It's no coincidence that we're hearing from different guys, that this is the place they want to be.

It's no longer just verbal word play, but a more genuine feeling being cultivated here.

Part of that culture is being exemplified by Buck.

Good on him, and good on the Bombers.

 

 

 

 

Well, the problem as I see it is that the Bombers consider the running back coach as an ENTRY LEVEL position. They have a quarterback coaching the position. He never spent any time as a running back. As Mike pointed out there are a lot of nuances coaching that position. It's not the big stuff you sweat but the small stuff. Without playing running back or coaching the position before at the lower levels, I think it was hard for Buck to come in cold & start coaching up his position players cold. I think the team saying that Running Backs Coach is an entry level position is wrong. A lot of knowledge & experience is needed to coach at the pro level. Or so I thought. Buck's done a decent job as a running back coach here but he should be coaching quarterbacks. That's where he'd shine, I believe. He could use his knowledge & experience to help other young qbs. That being said, he did a pretty good job as a first year coach. he should be commended & not criticized like you're doing Logan. 

 

Is there a team in the league that has a former rb as their rb coach? Some teams don't even have a rb coach, or others where it's a part time job.

 

That's the problem with the CFL. They just minimize the importance of coaching at some positions. Why is a running back coach entry level but coaching linebackers isn't? Or why do you need a receivers coach but not a qb coach? Darian Durant said publicly that he needs a qb coach. We saw that in Winnipeg before Drew Willy was here as we had no qb coach. 

 

 

What position would you like to have new coaches start in?   You can't always get guys with experience and it really isn't realistic to expect former players to start their coaching in the CIS and work their way up.

 

Those positional coaches are entry level positions, wasn't that long ago teams didn't even have them.  I'm sure these players go to coaching conferences and techniques in the off season instead of trading.  They take their direction from the coordinators on what they want done or how they want the position run.  They just need to execute on the direction, spend time one on one as the coordinators don't have the time to do it.

 

No coaching position on a CFL team should be considered "Entry Level". This is pro sports. They all should be treated equal & it should be a plum job to attain. Every position should have a coach. I'm just saying that the CFL tries to get by minimizing coaching & it doesn't work. Then when players or games suck like this season fans cry out. Well, look at how the money on football operations is spent. Is it spent wisely? Buck would have been used better as a qb coach. Hire someone who has coached running backs at the college or pro level before. That being said, I think Buck did fine. I don't agree with Logan's comments about Buck. The story was about Buck the man & not Buck the coach. 

Disagree that the CFL tries to minimize coaching. Teams are operating on different playing fields financially which in turn affects various aspects of the team including how many coaches a club can afford to play. This isn't the NFL where all clubs have maximized coaching staffs. Ontop of that, as has been pointed out, hiring someone who has coached running backs at the college or pro level before is not really necessary as has been indicated in this thread. Even teams in the NFL use coaches in difference positions than they played. The Green Bay Packers for example have Edgar Bennett who use to play as a running back coaching their receivers. Simply put, it is just simply not a requirement for all coaches to have played the position they are coaching. They've been around the game long enough to know what's required of each position. 

Disagree that the CFL tries to minimize coaching. Teams are operating on different playing fields financially which in turn affects various aspects of the team including how many coaches a club can afford to play. This isn't the NFL where all clubs have maximized coaching staffs. Ontop of that, as has been pointed out, hiring someone who has coached running backs at the college or pro level before is not really necessary as has been indicated in this thread. Even teams in the NFL use coaches in difference positions than they played. The Green Bay Packers for example have Edgar Bennett who use to play as a running back coaching their receivers. Simply put, it is just simply not a requirement for all coaches to have played the position they are coaching. They've been around the game long enough to know what's required of each position. 

If you look at NFL Coaching Bios all of them played college football & some played NCAA & pro football. Most NFL assistant coaches started coaching in HS or the NCAA & then moved on the to the pros including the CFL. It was a learning experience for all of them. They coached other positions but at lower levels. So, by the time they got to an NFL  team they were experienced coaches even if it wasn't a position they played. It doesn't cost a fortune to hire qualified coaches to coach positions in the CFL. We should have MORE CIS coaches coaching in the CFL. They cut their teeth in HS or junior ball & moved on to the CIS. If there is a CIS coach who has continually developed running backs over the years that went on to the CFL, why wouldn't he be hired, for example? 

 

The article was about Buck Pierce the "man" not the football player.  It demonstrates his big heart and compassion for others.  Regardless of what he did on the field, you can't help but admire the man he is and how he treats others.  

 

On the reverse we hold high so many professional athletes that had hall of fame careers but off the field they were real a$$holes.  Slagging Buck because his football career didn't meet your expectations.  Just shows the kind of person you are.  

Yes, because slagging one person shows exactly what kind of person any of us is.  And if you were talking about me, I didn't slag him, I said I couldn't stand him as a Bomber.  I never said he was crap.  Just like myself and others wouldn't like Hank or Tate as a Bomber.

 

 

Did I quote you?  Did I mention you by name?   All I was trying to do is to refocus the thread and remind people that this is about the man and not the football player and that to equate the two.   Is wrong.  

 

Get over yourself. 

 

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are great football players but are both scum of the earth.     That's the difference.

 

Disagree that the CFL tries to minimize coaching. Teams are operating on different playing fields financially which in turn affects various aspects of the team including how many coaches a club can afford to play. This isn't the NFL where all clubs have maximized coaching staffs. Ontop of that, as has been pointed out, hiring someone who has coached running backs at the college or pro level before is not really necessary as has been indicated in this thread. Even teams in the NFL use coaches in difference positions than they played. The Green Bay Packers for example have Edgar Bennett who use to play as a running back coaching their receivers. Simply put, it is just simply not a requirement for all coaches to have played the position they are coaching. They've been around the game long enough to know what's required of each position. 

If you look at NFL Coaching Bios all of them played college football & some played NCAA & pro football. Most NFL assistant coaches started coaching in HS or the NCAA & then moved on the to the pros including the CFL. It was a learning experience for all of them. They coached other positions but at lower levels. So, by the time they got to an NFL  team they were experienced coaches even if it wasn't a position they played. It doesn't cost a fortune to hire qualified coaches to coach positions in the CFL. We should have MORE CIS coaches coaching in the CFL. They cut their teeth in HS or junior ball & moved on to the CIS. If there is a CIS coach who has continually developed running backs over the years that went on to the CFL, why wouldn't he be hired, for example? 

 

Bolded point - Fair comment. I think a lot of it has to do with the track record (albeit small) of CIS coaches that have come to the CFL. The record of success isn't as good as one would think it is. Money plays a big role I'm sure too as I can't imagine CIS coaches being paid that well.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to have a pro player pay his dues in the lower ranks of CFL coaching than bring up a guy from CIS. In most cases, the track record of success is higher for pro players (CFL or NFL) earning their stripes in their respective leagues than bringing up coaches from the CIS, or NCAA. Greg Marshall, Nick Saban, Steve Spurrier, and Bobby Petrino immediately come to mind. There are more examples and of course there are exceptions but for the most part I think there are good reasons why coaches from CIS and the NCAA aren't as successful when it comes to transitioning to the pros, whether it be as a positional coach, coordinator, or head coach.

 

Disagree that the CFL tries to minimize coaching. Teams are operating on different playing fields financially which in turn affects various aspects of the team including how many coaches a club can afford to play. This isn't the NFL where all clubs have maximized coaching staffs. Ontop of that, as has been pointed out, hiring someone who has coached running backs at the college or pro level before is not really necessary as has been indicated in this thread. Even teams in the NFL use coaches in difference positions than they played. The Green Bay Packers for example have Edgar Bennett who use to play as a running back coaching their receivers. Simply put, it is just simply not a requirement for all coaches to have played the position they are coaching. They've been around the game long enough to know what's required of each position. 

If you look at NFL Coaching Bios all of them played college football & some played NCAA & pro football. Most NFL assistant coaches started coaching in HS or the NCAA & then moved on the to the pros including the CFL. It was a learning experience for all of them. They coached other positions but at lower levels. So, by the time they got to an NFL  team they were experienced coaches even if it wasn't a position they played. It doesn't cost a fortune to hire qualified coaches to coach positions in the CFL. We should have MORE CIS coaches coaching in the CFL. They cut their teeth in HS or junior ball & moved on to the CIS. If there is a CIS coach who has continually developed running backs over the years that went on to the CFL, why wouldn't he be hired, for example? 

 

 

My guess is that the answer to this is budgets at the CIS level.  

 

I couldn't find any concrete examples of how much CIS assistants make, but there we some sites saying it was in the 30 - 75k range.  I wouldn't hire a player who has never coached before as a head coach even at the CIS level.

 

A retired football player in his 30s and a family isn't going to take that job for 30k a year.  I'm guessing the range is due to different schools having different budgets.  If I had to guess, a school like Laval probably pays closer to the higher end of 75k, while others would be lower.  I would also guess that there are more school at the lower end of that range then the higher, and that makes those jobs scarce.

 

You need to pay to attract the top talent, and a lot of the CIS programs don't have the budget for that.   So if more CFL teams pulled purely from the CIS ranks, you'd be missing out on a lot of quality people who wouldn't coach for that kind of money.  

 

Look at the revenue that NCAA football brings in in terms of attendance and sponsorship.  Now look at the money CIS brings in.    There is your answer.

I won't argue the point you're making Rich as you're right. 

I clicked on the link but it was broken

I won't argue the point you're making Rich as you're right. 

 

Not about being right, just the answer as to why the CFL doesn't pull from the CIS more.

 

It is too bad there isn't more money spent at the University level to develop the coaches and players.  The CFL would be far better off if those programs had more money in terms of coaching and players.

 

Without that feeder system though, the CFL is basically given a choice of taking failed NCAA coaches who don't know the Canadian game and retired players.

Besides, it can all be learned on the go.

We never used to have a throwing-a-player-under-the-bus coach, but that was done exceptionally well last year.

Besides, it can all be learned on the go.

We never used to have a throwing-a-player-under-the-bus coach, but that was done exceptionally well last year.

The coach you referred to earned every km under that bus. 

Id have to assume that before the Bombers give Buck the OC job they have done their due diligence and make sure hes got some sorta play book with a real offence in it. Ill just say i think we brought Buck back to not just be a RB coach. 

 

 

The article was about Buck Pierce the "man" not the football player.  It demonstrates his big heart and compassion for others.  Regardless of what he did on the field, you can't help but admire the man he is and how he treats others.  

 

On the reverse we hold high so many professional athletes that had hall of fame careers but off the field they were real a$$holes.  Slagging Buck because his football career didn't meet your expectations.  Just shows the kind of person you are.  

Yes, because slagging one person shows exactly what kind of person any of us is.  And if you were talking about me, I didn't slag him, I said I couldn't stand him as a Bomber.  I never said he was crap.  Just like myself and others wouldn't like Hank or Tate as a Bomber.

 

 

Did I quote you?  Did I mention you by name?   All I was trying to do is to refocus the thread and remind people that this is about the man and not the football player and that to equate the two.   Is wrong.  

 

Get over yourself. 

 

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are great football players but are both scum of the earth.     That's the difference.

 

In case you can't read, I said "If you were talking about me", I never said you were.  I'm so sorry no one is allowed to discuss their opinions about Buck Pierce unless they're positive opinions of the guy.  I mistook this for a message board.  And good luck refocusing the thread when almost all of our threads get derailed in one way or another.