mbrg Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 A "golden" memory for me was taking my first piss in one of the trough urinals at Winnipeg Stadium when I was 8. Splash back was a ***** though when you're 3'-6".The guy who bought those urinals and installed them in his garage sure must be loving life these days. Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the tax return has a checkmark next to "single". johnzo and Tracker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Boy Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 A "golden" memory for me was taking my first piss in one of the trough urinals at Winnipeg Stadium when I was 8. Splash back was a ***** though when you're 3'-6".The guy who bought those urinals and installed them in his garage sure must be loving life these days. How big was the garage? Those troughs were endless foamy things. And what would you do with those things in the garage. I am not sure I even want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Boy Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 A "golden" memory for me was taking my first piss in one of the trough urinals at Winnipeg Stadium when I was 8. Splash back was a ***** though when you're 3'-6".The guy who bought those urinals and installed them in his garage sure must be loving life these days. Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the tax return has a checkmark next to "single". with a "forever" pencilled in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 A "golden" memory for me was taking my first piss in one of the trough urinals at Winnipeg Stadium when I was 8. Splash back was a ***** though when you're 3'-6".The guy who bought those urinals and installed them in his garage sure must be loving life these days. Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing the tax return has a checkmark next to "single". Then he's loving life even more! Atomic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have no issues with keeping Nelson Martin on here actually...proven...players like him, and db's were least of our concern I have issues in all 3 defensive assistants we have since they agrees with Etch in (1) having no playbook and (2) playing players out of their natural position. That statement doesn't really make any sense. You don't know what their personal views on either of those issues were and in the case of a guy like Nelson Martin as an example, all of our defensive backs were experienced defensive backs. This whole "playing players out of their natural position" thing was so overblown while Etch was here. Truly. The only two players we had playing a position they weren't traditionally suited for or experienced at were Mike Cornell and Ian Wild. So one rotational guy and one full time starter. Our front 7 especially at lber was undersized. Etch never accounted for all the inside gaps. He didn't play a sound basic defense where every gap was accounted for defensively. It was predicated on stopping the pass & virtually ignoring the run. We were pushed back constantly. When teams started running on us we had no answer & wilted defensively. It was an unsound system doomed to failure. Every defensive coordinator I ever coached with had gap contain in their defensive playbook. It is sound, basic football 101. As far as the other assistants go? Etch was their immediate boss. They did what they were told to do as assistants. They did know going in what the philosophy on defense was going to be & agreed with it. Having said that, it doesn't mean that can't coach under Ritchie Hall & be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have no issues with keeping Nelson Martin on here actually...proven...players like him, and db's were least of our concern I have issues in all 3 defensive assistants we have since they agrees with Etch in (1) having no playbook and (2) playing players out of their natural position. That statement doesn't really make any sense. You don't know what their personal views on either of those issues were and in the case of a guy like Nelson Martin as an example, all of our defensive backs were experienced defensive backs. This whole "playing players out of their natural position" thing was so overblown while Etch was here. Truly. The only two players we had playing a position they weren't traditionally suited for or experienced at were Mike Cornell and Ian Wild. So one rotational guy and one full time starter. Our front 7 especially at lber was undersized. Etch never accounted for all the inside gaps. He didn't play a sound basic defense where every gap was accounted for defensively. It was predicated on stopping the pass & virtually ignoring the run. We were pushed back constantly. When teams started running on us we had no answer & wilted defensively. It was an unsound system doomed to failure. Every defensive coordinator I ever coached with had gap contain in their defensive playbook. It is sound, basic football 101. As far as the other assistants go? Etch was their immediate boss. They did what they were told to do as assistants. They did know going in what the philosophy on defense was going to be & agreed with it. Having said that, it doesn't mean that can't coach under Ritchie Hall & be successful. Our front 7 was not all that undersized ... his philosophy was far more of an issue. You're really not going to sell me that guys like Turner, Vega, Anderson, Peach, Booker, Fraser, Sears or Dunn were undersized for their positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have no issues with keeping Nelson Martin on here actually...proven...players like him, and db's were least of our concern I have issues in all 3 defensive assistants we have since they agrees with Etch in (1) having no playbook and (2) playing players out of their natural position. That statement doesn't really make any sense. You don't know what their personal views on either of those issues were and in the case of a guy like Nelson Martin as an example, all of our defensive backs were experienced defensive backs. This whole "playing players out of their natural position" thing was so overblown while Etch was here. Truly. The only two players we had playing a position they weren't traditionally suited for or experienced at were Mike Cornell and Ian Wild. So one rotational guy and one full time starter. Our front 7 especially at lber was undersized. Etch never accounted for all the inside gaps. He didn't play a sound basic defense where every gap was accounted for defensively. It was predicated on stopping the pass & virtually ignoring the run. We were pushed back constantly. When teams started running on us we had no answer & wilted defensively. It was an unsound system doomed to failure. Every defensive coordinator I ever coached with had gap contain in their defensive playbook. It is sound, basic football 101. As far as the other assistants go? Etch was their immediate boss. They did what they were told to do as assistants. They did know going in what the philosophy on defense was going to be & agreed with it. Having said that, it doesn't mean that can't coach under Ritchie Hall & be successful. I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... Agree. Even your avatar look smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booch Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 his system was more into just occupying a lineman's space to allow others to get to ball carrier, and not actually get after anybody, or search and destroy through the gaps. Also he always had his down lineman working at going in on angles and never squaring up, hence getting washed out by the oline. Once OC's seen the philosphy all they needed to do was have the o-line slide step and use the momentum and wash out any down lineman and linebackers and the ball carrier was immediately in second level, or meeting a db with a full head of steam allowing pretty much any time to get extra 3-4 yards push through the tackler...pure garbage system He also if you watched preached to rally around the ball carrier, but instead of planting him in the turf, keep em up and try for the strip...watch some game film...drove me nuts with that mindset. Nothing wrong with the size of our line man..Fraser is a beast...as is Turner and Anderson... Booker as well was used totally wrong U will see next year what a difference a sound system makes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... With that avatar, I can tell you're a winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I just never want to see Cornell or pall lining up as DT on a critical play again... Hope cornell sticks as lb/ St though - excited for a good ol pass rush again James 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehedra Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I hope on FA we don't try to concentrate too broad; I want to see us target upgrades in OL and an MLB. Perhaps a few key defensive players, I personally feel with our stable of receivers although not amazing they are able to produce and might even surprise us. To me if Walters starts going to broad it means his SMS dollars per FA will decrease and it might be tougher to also manage the multiple negotiations. I really hope they have five guys they REALLLY want and land at least three of them. Instead of looking at 10-15 guys that could be upgrades; and maybe missing out on the ones they really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I hope on FA we don't try to concentrate too broad; I want to see us target upgrades in OL and an MLB. Perhaps a few key defensive players, I personally feel with our stable of receivers although not amazing they are able to produce and might even surprise us. To me if Walters starts going to broad it means his SMS dollars per FA will decrease and it might be tougher to also manage the multiple negotiations. I really hope they have five guys they REALLLY want and land at least three of them. Instead of looking at 10-15 guys that could be upgrades; and maybe missing out on the ones they really want. I don't imagine that's really how it works. You don't go into free agency with a limit on what you can spend. The limit is the SMS. You don't have a pool of "free agent dollars", there's no cap right now. The bigger issue with targeting a high number of guys is likely being able to work the phones effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think I'd like to see them go hard after Heenan and or Holmes, I know some say it's a pipe dream to get Heenan but I'm not convinced of that, He's testing the FA waters for a reason, I think if the Bombers make him a solid offer, that it's likely he does sign here, Lots of connections here it seems. Neufeld, Willy,Newman even and now Picard too. Wouldn't surprised me if we land him actually. Wouldn't mind them going after a receiver, thinking a guy like Earnest Jackson would be nice, Willys fav receiver at U of B... MLB's? I don't see many on the list, I see a few interesting depth players.. guys like Sam Hurl might be a nice pick up. Maybe some depth at DL would be ok too with Lucas retiring, Maybe a guy like Donny O altho i'm not sure he's much better than Jake Thomas at this point, always thought Donny O was a bit over rated by some.. people wanted him to be the next Doug Brown but he really hasn't even come close to living up to his hype. Honestly, An OL or 2, perhaps the other being an import Tackle altho if you sign Heenan, I think I like Daniels or Tyler at the other Tackle spot. Maybe a receiver, not a priority in my opinion but i'd be ok if they grabbed one and some depth for sure, hurl etc to replace guys like Cornell and the sorts on the roster. Gotta remember that guys like Cornell and that are just depth guys, if they can be replaced by younger better players, by all means, go for it. Plus we got the draft so i'd suspect, Not sure who our 4 or 5 worst "depth" canadian players are but i'd imagine if you can replace them with the draft and free agency, we will be doing good. Also a point that might be over looked is Graig Newman, should be healthy and ready to go and him being healthy automatically bumps off one of our "depth canadian players" for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Wonder if anyone will target Heenan and Holmes - 500k for best line in the league - would love to see Walters do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan007 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... Agree. Even your avatar look smart. Especially with all those lasers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehedra Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I hope on FA we don't try to concentrate too broad; I want to see us target upgrades in OL and an MLB. Perhaps a few key defensive players, I personally feel with our stable of receivers although not amazing they are able to produce and might even surprise us. To me if Walters starts going to broad it means his SMS dollars per FA will decrease and it might be tougher to also manage the multiple negotiations. I really hope they have five guys they REALLLY want and land at least three of them. Instead of looking at 10-15 guys that could be upgrades; and maybe missing out on the ones they really want. I don't imagine that's really how it works. You don't go into free agency with a limit on what you can spend. The limit is the SMS. You don't have a pool of "free agent dollars", there's no cap right now. The bigger issue with targeting a high number of guys is likely being able to work the phones effectively. I definitely didn't explain my thought process out very well when I meant per FA I did mean SMS but what I meant per FA is that you generally spend more in Free Agency then if you were to have recruited or drafted the player yourself. So you pay slightly more for those positions than you would expect if you had drafted the player or recruited the player that was kind of unknown or waivered by other teams. Like they say you can't build your team on FA but you can improve it. Hard to explain but really my main concern is manning the calls and negotiations and getting beat by being drawn too thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... You are!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted January 23, 2015 Report Share Posted January 23, 2015 I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... I thought the undersized rumour was quashed a while back?.... especially in the front 4... I recall someone compared the size of our D-line vs Sask's D-line and it was essentially the same... LBs are a different story though That was me. I'm really smart... You are!! 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