Rich

ive heard the following in regards to why Thorburn was signed: - Buddy with Kane/makes Kane happy/keeps Kane out of trouble - Very close with Chipman/Chipman sees Thorburn as a lifer - Fantastic locker room guy/loss of Thurburn would hurt morale I dont know if I buy any of those. I think management saw him last year, saw him fill in for Kane and not really get exposed (though he didnt really make that line any better nor should he have been expected to) and "rewarded" him. I dont really care about the contract because it's a million bucks, who cares. If he's a saint in the locker room, great, make him a career 12/13 forward who comes into the game every few games when someone gets hurt or we need a shake up. But playing a guy who's playing 3-5 minutes a game? And its not just him. Halischuk (who I like) played 3 minutes last game. Really? We dont have an option the coach trusts more in St Johns? It just makes you wonder. When they win, no one cares. But the questions will come if they dont perform well on this road trip. Because if the coach isnt playing the fourth line, it means we need a better fourth line. if the GM isnt improving those guys, what message is that sending? We were told part of bringing in Maurice last season was to do an in depth analysis of the roster....I guess he liked everyone. They played a clip on TSN1290 this morning where Maurice said not to look at it as he doesn't want to play the 4th line, but look at it like he wants to play the other 3 more. He basically said he doesn't want to take minutes away from the other 3 lines. Which is all fine and good, but then don't use the excuse of your team being too tired as a reason why they lost or played poorly. You can't have it both ways.

The team has regressed from the stretch of games that saw them climb into 3rd place in the Central. Perhaps a better choice of words would be "can we now say this team is the same as it has been for four years". We've changed the players. We've changes the coach. And yet the record is nearly identical. Everyone wanted to say "this is the real Jets" when they were winning. My point is, losing one or two means nothing but this stretch of losing 4 out of 5 and the way they've done it shows me the team has "regressed" back to where they were. One goal games or not..a loss is a loss. if they were losses like the Pens loss, so be it. They arent. Pavs Save Percentage is a wonderful .893 or whatever these past few games and he's looked shaky. Im a Pavs guy...and even Im at the point where Im saying is Pavs the goalie we see 45 games a season that is barely average or the goalie we see 20 games a season that is great? That first season, the Jets' depth was awful and we had fourth line players playing 3rd line. No one is arguing that. But to use Stapleton as an example of improved players is moot. At worst it contributes to my argument that the Jets are a lousy team since they replaced those guys and arent any better. if I was you, I'd use the example of replacing Jokinen with Perrault. Thats a significant upgrade. Looks good. Makes the line better. Makes the team better. helps the puck posession game. And yet the team has no more wins. I want to be wrong. I just dont think I am. And my...not frustration, but agitation is that management doesnt appear to be addressing any key issues. They were pretty friggen lucky Hutch has turned out because they took a chance on a guy with 3 NHL games on his resume as a back up behind a below average starter. The fourth line barely plays and they've done nothing but reward a 4th line guy with a big contract. I dont get that. The Jets are in the position to be able to take better talent from other teams who have better depth but want to shed some salary...why we dont is beyond me. I agree with a lot of what you say. Chevy needs to start using everything at his disposal, including trading, to make this team better. The Frolik deal was good, but that is really all he has done trade wise to make this team better in 4 years. People who point to bad trades that GMs make overlook the GMs who make good trades for their team (look at Dallas). Your job as a GM is to assess and evaluate talent and being able to negotiate those deals. Not every trade is bad for your team. The cupboards here are no longer bare, they've filled them with prospects and picks ... time to start using them. However they did get a backup plan in case Hutch didn't pan out. Budaj is still down at the Rock and he would be called up if Hutch didn't turn out. He was the backup plan for at least this year till one of the other youngsters would be able to step up. Glad to see Hutch doing well though.

Shame on Chevy if that is why he was signed.

I'd be shocked if anyone from the 4th line made it back next year. Thorby is locked up for a couple more. Still don't understand that contract.

To be fair on this one, he included it on a tweet talking to Nic Grigsby wishing him luck in the playoffs. Just makes you wonder if it was football related.

Likely something completely unrelated to football. Just daily life stuff.

Maurice Leggett ‏@almighty31 1m1 minute ago @KimBabij @randyturner15 I'm not talking about the bombers. I love #Winnipeg 0 replies1 retweet0 favorites Reply Retweet1

Sound off doesn't really sound like a good thing. Usually means he is going to speak up about something.

IF the right deal were to present itself, I would definitely trade him. It has been mentioned previously, but for a man of that size, when the drop off happens it is going to happen quickly. Knees and joints take that much more of a beating with the weight and size he carries. He is currently 29, next year is the last year of his contract and he will be 30. Purely a guess, but I would say his drop-off starts happening around 32 – 33. Trade him now while the team is “on the edge” sort a speak, and a shakeup is warranted. Be nice to get a few pieces to help the forward depth and prospects to join the up and comers. Would need at least one top 6 forward (or a younger player who could be ready to be a top 6 this year or next) and a decent prospect. Maybe throw in a bottom 6 to bolster our depth there and send back a later draft pick. My biggest fear is he is going into the last year of his contract next year, and next year we are on the bubble of making the playoffs (again) at the draft deadline and Chevy doesn’t deal him because we “may” make the playoffs, then we lose him for nothing in free agency. Someone is likely to offer him a longer term then I’d be comfortable with when he hits free agency in a couple of years. Now of course it is possible no one is offering the pieces Chevy would want in return, but I would have to think there is a contender who would be interested in his services. The one issue I do see is some of the contenders may not be able to take his cap hit of 5.2M. While not an excessive salary in this day and age, with the rumors of the cap not going up a whole lot next year, teams that would normally be interested may not have the cap space to deal for him. If this is the case, we wouldn’t be able to deal him until the trade deadline next season.

With only the Grey Cup game left and saskbluefan in the lead by two games, saskbluefan takes home the $50 Gift Certificate this year. Congratulations saskbluefan! The Grey Cup game has still been setup if you want to make your picks in the final week. http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=games&pid=5&wid=70

They had power of attorney so my guess is that he signed everything over to them to manage and had no clue about what they were doing.

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.

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 agree it does, and good for them for doing it. Let the management group worry about the fans. For a team as besieged by their fans and media as they are, that probably felt great for them. So if the Jets were to do something similar here because a group of fans were acting stupid that you weren't a part of, you'd be fine with it even after dropping $500 for a couple of seats, beer, and popcorn. Pat them on the back and say way to show them.

While it is true that there are Leafs fans who don't deserve the players to "give back" with some of the antics they've done, it doesn't hold true for every fan in the building. I would say that for the fans in attendance there are far far more that don't do that stupid stuff then do. For the players to snub the whole fan base because of that is unacceptable. You are in a job that in one way or another (ticket prices, advertisers, etc) you are paid by fan support. If the fan support goes away, then you don't have a job anymore. They are in the entertainment business. I agree that the salute doesn't mean all that much, but to purposefully not do it at that point in time does means a whole lot as a statement. They are "punishing" the whole fan base because of a few. And that is just going to turn more fans against them.

The leafs are a very dysfunctional group right now. Getting to the point where they need to do a whole lot more then just fire the coach to shake things up. Need to start trading and replacing their core. Phaneuf and Kessel are going down a path where they will be run out of town.

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.

How is buck supposed to teach a guy to not trip on defenders finger tips or pick the right gap at full speed? Trick question, he can't. Both of those key failures are on the RB.. He either has the power to run thru pinky fingers or he has the vision to see the holes made by oline.. Because he's the COACH...that's his job...to teach him to stop the bad habits and how to do better job at playing their position. What the heck do you think the coach does "oh just go out there and do what you do...". No, they teach them how to stop doing the stupid things and how to be better at what they do. To be fair Grigsby did get a bit better at dropping some of the bad habits from his game... but there's only so much you can do with a player who is unwilling to play like a man and would rather quit. None of us can judge Pierce, his position just isn't one that lends itself to the general fanbase having any idea about. Grigsby I just think was what he was and no coach was going to make him a better running back. 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 haven't seen anyone list him as a savior. He is just a popular guy in the city for the way he played the game (like his play or not he sacrificed his body and put it all on the line in each game he played) and the way he has embraced the city. I think it is more of people wanting to see him do well because of that. It would be a feel good story ... unless of course you don't like Buck Pierce. I wasn't talking about just this thread. I've seen other threads where they thought Buck should be our OC right now. To me that sounds like some people think he's a savior. I guess we just have different definitions of savior then. I agree, I don't think Buck is ready to be an OC yet. Would like to see him get some more coaching experience and be more involved in the ups and downs during a season as a coach and what different coaches do to address and deal with those things. Would also like to see him get more experience under someone other then Marcel.

How is buck supposed to teach a guy to not trip on defenders finger tips or pick the right gap at full speed? Trick question, he can't. Both of those key failures are on the RB.. He either has the power to run thru pinky fingers or he has the vision to see the holes made by oline.. Because he's the COACH...that's his job...to teach him to stop the bad habits and how to do better job at playing their position. What the heck do you think the coach does "oh just go out there and do what you do...". No, they teach them how to stop doing the stupid things and how to be better at what they do. To be fair Grigsby did get a bit better at dropping some of the bad habits from his game... but there's only so much you can do with a player who is unwilling to play like a man and would rather quit. None of us can judge Pierce, his position just isn't one that lends itself to the general fanbase having any idea about. Grigsby I just think was what he was and no coach was going to make him a better running back. 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 haven't seen anyone list him as a savior. He is just a popular guy in the city for the way he played the game (like his play or not he sacrificed his body and put it all on the line in each game he played) and the way he has embraced the city. I think it is more of people wanting to see him do well because of that. It would be a feel good story ... unless of course you don't like Buck Pierce.

I know this doesn't always mean anything, especially since Calgary is playing a playoff game this weekend, but Dickenson says he isn't leaving Calgary.

Three games left to pick and saskbluefan has a 2 game lead over kelownabomberfan. Can saskbluefan wrap this up before Grey Cup week? Make your picks here before game time on Sunday: http://morningbigblue.com/community/index.php?app=pickems&do=games&pid=5&wid=69

A little bit, but I'd also say it's about what he did with the team he inherited. Over here Burke inherited a turd (looked at it and said keep on keeping on). Benevides inherited a team that had contended every year for quite a while and had been getting groomed for the transition, basically a turnkey operation when he took over. I've wondered before what would have happened if those two had flipped places. Does Burke become a smarter coach and Benevides the guy who gets mocked? I know Burke wasn't put into a great situation, but the way he handled his coaching gig here leads me to believe he isn't head coaching material. It is when things go bad that you show your real colors because something is always going to go wrong, just different degrees. Just the things he would say to the media, deflecting blame, etc ... it doesn't instill a lot of confidence in your "leader".

I work in IT, and while I don't work in the specific fields for these products, I have a basic enough understanding of how technology and the internet works to make somewhat informed decisions on how I use new technology. For people who have no idea and just "trust" the manufacturers of what they buy and the internet services they use, it can be pretty scary the data and patterns they unknowingly give up about themselves. I grew up at a time when we "only" had 13 channels on cable TV with a dial to change the channel and no remote as well as a rotary phone land line. I have friends who lived in the country and had a party line where they had to share the same phone number with their neighbors (ie. pick up the phone and if you hear someone talking, it is your neighbor using the line so hang up and come back and try again later). I find it really scary what this generation grows up with as "normal" in terms of privacy and data that is shared and known about individuals. When you never know another way, and this is just the way things are, more and more is taken. Now I'm going to go sit on my porch with my shotgun and be a crotchety old man....

I dont have either but from the information i've read, the PS4 has higher graphic ability. One review said that developers making a game for both systems would design it using the lower spec system but that both were virtually the same. I looked at an extensive review of GTAV yesterday and it indicated slightly higher graphics for PS4 but said it was only noticeable side by side. It really seems to come down to: - Personal preference. Are you a Microsoft guy or a Sony guy? - What do your buddies have. If you're going to play online, all need the same system. - Console exclusives. Any titles that are must-have for you but only available on a specific system. Price seemed to be a big factor early on with people gravitating towards Sony. Microsoft lowered the Xbox price and have begun gaining on Sony in sales. Another issue is the Kinect which is really, really cool and likely the future of home entertainment. But as my gf calls it, Skynet is always watching. There was a news story today warning people that a website has appeared that features videos gleaned from webcams and baby monitors. I applaud Microsoft for being forward thinking but it seems the public wasnt quite ready to embrace an always-on Big Brother-type Skynet device. This is way off topic on the video game front, but feeds nicely into your Skynet comparison. Very interesting read on anyone planning to buy a new "Smart" TV. http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/im-terrified-my-new-tv-why-im-scared-turn-thing

God if you listen to me, you're never going to learn anything. Listen to people like JuranBoldenRules, voodoochylde, Booch, Rids and TBieber ... those are just a few of the guys I see as must read posters. haha yeah for sure, there are a few must reads. One thing I noticed is there seems to be less game day chatter (I assume people are in the chat rooms?). I watch games on delay and look forward to going through the threads to see what people were thinking during the game. We typically get anywhere from 30 - 40 people in the chat room for game days. The chat room is a much better tool for discussion during the game. The downside is you don't get to "relive" the game afterward in a forum thread.