bearpants Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 The only thing I truly disagree with is his assertion that it takes a professional team 3-5 years to turn it around... that is usually correct but doesn't really apply to the CFL... yes I know it's been mentioned but Hamilton is the perfect example... 2012 they were 6-12 with a decent offense and terrible defense... 2013 they throw money and lure Kent Austin there... in the first year they make it to the cup finals... 2014 they ditch their vet QB for a young guy and make it to Grey Cup again and just barely lose... 2015 probably the best team in the league with the best defense (see comments from 2012)... they turned it around to being competitive right away and were a power house in the third year... we're two years in a still barely competitive... how many people here believe the Bombers will be a power house next year? DR. CFL, rebusrankin and Judd 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J5V Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 The only thing I truly disagree with is his assertion that it takes a professional team 3-5 years to turn it around... that is usually correct but doesn't really apply to the CFL... yes I know it's been mentioned but Hamilton is the perfect example... 2012 they were 6-12 with a decent offense and terrible defense... 2013 they throw money and lure Kent Austin there... in the first year they make it to the cup finals... 2014 they ditch their vet QB for a young guy and make it to Grey Cup again and just barely lose... 2015 probably the best team in the league with the best defense (see comments from 2012)... they turned it around to being competitive right away and were a power house in the third year... we're two years in a still barely competitive... how many people here believe the Bombers will be a power house next year? Let's compare ... Bob Young - Our BOD Kent Austin - Walters/O'Shea Uh, no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 The only thing I truly disagree with is his assertion that it takes a professional team 3-5 years to turn it around... that is usually correct but doesn't really apply to the CFL... yes I know it's been mentioned but Hamilton is the perfect example... 2012 they were 6-12 with a decent offense and terrible defense... 2013 they throw money and lure Kent Austin there... in the first year they make it to the cup finals... 2014 they ditch their vet QB for a young guy and make it to Grey Cup again and just barely lose... 2015 probably the best team in the league with the best defense (see comments from 2012)... they turned it around to being competitive right away and were a power house in the third year... we're two years in a still barely competitive... how many people here believe the Bombers will be a power house next year? There are a lot of things that play into how quickly a team can find success under a new regime other than just the affect the new management has. Core units staying intact, consistency in schemes, health of players, etc. Austin was also not a typical hire either. A previous Grey Cup winning head coach ready to come back to the CFL doesn't come along very often. I think you can't compare that to what we have with O'Shea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 The only thing I truly disagree with is his assertion that it takes a professional team 3-5 years to turn it around... that is usually correct but doesn't really apply to the CFL... yes I know it's been mentioned but Hamilton is the perfect example... 2012 they were 6-12 with a decent offense and terrible defense... 2013 they throw money and lure Kent Austin there... in the first year they make it to the cup finals... 2014 they ditch their vet QB for a young guy and make it to Grey Cup again and just barely lose... 2015 probably the best team in the league with the best defense (see comments from 2012)... they turned it around to being competitive right away and were a power house in the third year... we're two years in a still barely competitive... how many people here believe the Bombers will be a power house next year? How about we talk about the years before that? Rebuilding isn't just about a new person coming in, it's about what's already in the system when a person comes in, and in the Bombers case the QB and NI situations have been bad for a long long time and not a lot has been built. When Kelly took over the team basically had Brown and Labatte and a bunch of meh canadians. Kelly didn't do much to add to the NIs in his year, then Labatte leaves in free agency and we have Brown retiring and we're left with a bunch of meh at NI. Mack brought in some guys like Watson and Muamba, but Watsons injuries and Muamba going to the NFL again left it pretty meh. Now we're in a situation where they're still trying to get some quality NIs in here. The qb thing is even worse. Kelly destroyed the position. Mack went out and signed Pierce and Jyles as vets but neither one of them lasted. Pierce was broken and no one was able to develop. Now we have Willy but he's missing a lot of time to injury and the backups aren't developing. When nothing ever gets built it doesn't matter who you hire it's not going to be a quick turn around. SPuDS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 So did Austin inherit a pool of talent or was he hired and then they found the talent.....I think it was door number 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 So did Austin inherit a pool of talent or was he hired and then they found the talent.....I think it was door number 2 It's never one or the other. If you have no base it takes more time to build. The Bombers might as well have been an expansion team the way things went. Patience was required instead we kept blowing **** up every year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 So did Austin inherit a pool of talent or was he hired and then they found the talent.....I think it was door number 2It's never one or the other. If you have no base it takes more time to build. The Bombers might as well have been an expansion team the way things went. Patience was required instead we kept blowing **** up every year or two. And this is the crux of it. After Kelly and Mack, this squad was essentially an expansion team minus the expansion draft.. Our canadian content was garbage. Imports were not much better..QB was a joke. We have just began to have inhouse draft picks developing and hopefully filling the ranks and not just cut or traded. Our QB situation is still murky and our imports, although slowly, have been improving steadily at most positions. This team was brutal, period. They covered it up but at the end of the day it is what it is.. wpgallday1960 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 The 'we gotta give them more time' group still hasn't given any examples of when teams have given losing HC's/GM's extra time and it's worked out well. If 'giving them more time' is the right way to go, where's the list of rookie HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who went on to greatness or were even kept by their teams? The Bombers have tried the give them more time theory before. With Mack. It was an unmitigated disaster. Pro football is about results. No playoffs in year 1 gets some HC's fired. No playoffs for 2 years in a row gets most HC's fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 I am not as concerned about using the playoffs as a measuring stick for success. I believe that if you demonstrate development and improvement in personnel and performance that can warrant patience. The QB issue remains a concern. As have extended periods of stagnation the past 2 seasons. Nichols may prove a stop gap but we still need to look at the big picture over the remainder of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 The only thing I truly disagree with is his assertion that it takes a professional team 3-5 years to turn it around... that is usually correct but doesn't really apply to the CFL... yes I know it's been mentioned but Hamilton is the perfect example... 2012 they were 6-12 with a decent offense and terrible defense... 2013 they throw money and lure Kent Austin there... in the first year they make it to the cup finals... 2014 they ditch their vet QB for a young guy and make it to Grey Cup again and just barely lose... 2015 probably the best team in the league with the best defense (see comments from 2012)... they turned it around to being competitive right away and were a power house in the third year... we're two years in a still barely competitive... how many people here believe the Bombers will be a power house next year? How about we talk about the years before that? Rebuilding isn't just about a new person coming in, it's about what's already in the system when a person comes in, and in the Bombers case the QB and NI situations have been bad for a long long time and not a lot has been built. When Kelly took over the team basically had Brown and Labatte and a bunch of meh canadians. Kelly didn't do much to add to the NIs in his year, then Labatte leaves in free agency and we have Brown retiring and we're left with a bunch of meh at NI. Mack brought in some guys like Watson and Muamba, but Watsons injuries and Muamba going to the NFL again left it pretty meh. Now we're in a situation where they're still trying to get some quality NIs in here. The qb thing is even worse. Kelly destroyed the position. Mack went out and signed Pierce and Jyles as vets but neither one of them lasted. Pierce was broken and no one was able to develop. Now we have Willy but he's missing a lot of time to injury and the backups aren't developing. When nothing ever gets built it doesn't matter who you hire it's not going to be a quick turn around. You're absolutely right... to get a "fuller" perspective of Hamilton's turn around you would need to go back to 2003 (give or take) when they were 1-17... it took them a few years to get to mediocrity under Bellefuille... that continued with Cortez (that team was probably a little better than their 6-12 record suggests)... and finally on to the Austin era.... the point I was making is that teams can turn it around in a year or 2 in the CFL as long as some of the pieces are there... it wasn't meant to be a shot at the current Bombers regime...maybe this is not the regime to get us back to prominence... maybe this regime is the Bellefiulle era in the Hamilton example... mostly just pointing out that Lawless was wrong about that fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Lawless, Doug Brown et al. are entitled to their opinion. The notion that because someone has been given a pen and paper and a vehicle to scribble on makes them an expert is a stretch. They seem to often be able to whip people into a firestorm and at times seem to then relish in it. Their opinion is and will remain simply that to me....an individual opinion and nothing more. Fan Boy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Lawless seems to like these guys personally, which I'm sure is playing into him preaching patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 The 'we gotta give them more time' group still hasn't given any examples of when teams have given losing HC's/GM's extra time and it's worked out well. If 'giving them more time' is the right way to go, where's the list of rookie HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who went on to greatness or were even kept by their teams? The Bombers have tried the give them more time theory before. With Mack. It was an unmitigated disaster. Pro football is about results. No playoffs in year 1 gets some HC's fired. No playoffs for 2 years in a row gets most HC's fired. Just because the "give them more time" theory hasn't worked most recently with Mack, you can't dismiss the idea altogether going forward. We've tried the "can them every two years" theory many more times in the last 25 years and where has that gotten us? Two different GMs, Mack and Walters, with two different philosophies on either end of the spectrum, not to mention two completely different backgrounds. I wouldn't be so quick to suggest the same results would happen giving him an extra year. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted September 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Lawless seems to like these guys personally, which I'm sure is playing into him preaching patience. He worked for the Argos back in the day...he and MOS are buddies from a way back. That said, he's still right about patience.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 The 'we gotta give them more time' group still hasn't given any examples of when teams have given losing HC's/GM's extra time and it's worked out well. If 'giving them more time' is the right way to go, where's the list of rookie HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who went on to greatness or were even kept by their teams? The Bombers have tried the give them more time theory before. With Mack. It was an unmitigated disaster. Pro football is about results. No playoffs in year 1 gets some HC's fired. No playoffs for 2 years in a row gets most HC's fired. Just because the "give them more time" theory hasn't worked most recently with Mack, you can't dismiss the idea altogether going forward. We've tried the "can them every two years" theory many more times in the last 25 years and where has that gotten us? Two different GMs, Mack and Walters, with two different philosophies on either end of the spectrum, not to mention two completely different backgrounds. I would be so quick to suggest the same results would happen with an extra year. No one's given me a single example of when the "give them more time" theory actually worked. It's not the firings that are the problem. It's the hirings. We gave Burke and PLAP more time than they deserved (2 more examples where giving them more time didn't work out). All that got us was "replace them mid-season" which almost never works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 No one's given me a single example of when the "give them more time" theory actually worked. Dave Richie went 13-22-1 in his first two seasons with the Bombers. 14-4 in year three. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Obviously overlooked in the debate about which team vaulted to elite status ahead of others, is the QB status of the clubs. If you don't have a sustainable elite starter...you ain't going anywhere. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 No one's given me a single example of when the "give them more time" theory actually worked. Dave Richie went 13-22-1 in his first two seasons with the Bombers. 14-4 in year three. Dave Richie wasn't a rookie HC. When we signed him, he'd never missed the playoffs before and had won a Grey Cup. He made the playoffs in year 2 (7-10-1) with Winnipeg, winning 5 of the last 9, losing by 2 points in the semi. If O'Shea does the same, he should be kept on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlue Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 What distubs me is Ottawa, an expansion club, appears tp be ahead of us in development and play ... agree or not they have a win now attitude in terms of their personnel .... thats all that counts in the dfl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 What distubs me is Ottawa, an expansion club, appears tp be ahead of us in development and play ... agree or not they have a win now attitude in terms of their personnel .... thats all that counts in the dfl Ottawa also hasn't had their starting qb get hurt either which puts them ahead of every team in the league except Calgary and Hamilton. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 No one's given me a single example of when the "give them more time" theory actually worked. Dave Richie went 13-22-1 in his first two seasons with the Bombers. 14-4 in year three. Dave Richie wasn't a rookie HC. When we signed him, he'd never missed the playoffs before and had won a Grey Cup. He made the playoffs in year 2 (7-10-1) with Winnipeg, winning 5 of the last 9, losing by 2 points in the semi. If O'Shea does the same, he should be kept on. Why does it matter if the coach is a rookie or not? If anything a rookie coach should be given a little more time to get comfortable as the head guy and work through the rookie-type mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Experienced HC's have their record to fall back on as proof that they can be good HC's. Rookie HC's don't have any record, so you have to judge them only on what they are accomplishing at the moment. I can't think of any time in the CFL that a rookie HC was given a 3rd year to see if he could get his team into the playoffs. There's a reason for that... make the playoffs or get canned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 The 'we gotta give them more time' group still hasn't given any examples of when teams have given losing HC's/GM's extra time and it's worked out well. If 'giving them more time' is the right way to go, where's the list of rookie HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who went on to greatness or were even kept by their teams? The Bombers have tried the give them more time theory before. With Mack. It was an unmitigated disaster. Pro football is about results. No playoffs in year 1 gets some HC's fired. No playoffs for 2 years in a row gets most HC's fired. Just because the "give them more time" theory hasn't worked most recently with Mack, you can't dismiss the idea altogether going forward. We've tried the "can them every two years" theory many more times in the last 25 years and where has that gotten us? Two different GMs, Mack and Walters, with two different philosophies on either end of the spectrum, not to mention two completely different backgrounds. I would be so quick to suggest the same results would happen with an extra year. No one's given me a single example of when the "give them more time" theory actually worked. It's not the firings that are the problem. It's the hirings. We gave Burke and PLAP more time than they deserved (2 more examples where giving them more time didn't work out). All that got us was "replace them mid-season" which almost never works. So when should have Burke been fired exactly? I think he deserved the chance to have a full year with the job, run his own team with a full TC, and see how he could work through the adversity. After that season, when there was no improvement whatsoever coupled with the fact that he looked completely disinterested, he was rightfully let go. Can't understand the Lapo example either. He made it to the Grey Cup his second season, and was fired midway through his third, so when was he given more time? Should he have been fired after taking his team to the Grey Cup? Or after his rookie year when we lost a bunch of close games? Fan Boy and blitzmore 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Experienced HC's have their record to fall back on as proof that they can be good HC's. Rookie HC's don't have any record, so you have to judge them only on what they are accomplishing at the moment. I can't think of any time in the CFL that a rookie HC was given a 3rd year to see if he could get his team into the playoffs. There's a reason for that... make the playoffs or get canned. Joe Paopao had 5 losing seasons, missing the playoffs in each one, four in a row in Ottawa. Not a record to fall back on in any situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 Lawless seems to like these guys personally, which I'm sure is playing into him preaching patience. Funny how members here hate Lawless only when he writes something they don't like but then like him if he writes something they like. Otherwise they call him a dirtbag journalist. DR. CFL 1 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