TrueBlue

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?

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.

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.

I think the way your question was given as a "if you were the GM..." is what is the issue. You could get the same answers from people if it was something like "What signing do you think would have more of an impact?" Thanks Mr. Professor...you're so smart! Feel free to keep defending your thread, that's fun too.

I think the way your question was given as a "if you were the GM..." is what is the issue. You could get the same answers from people if it was something like "What signing do you think would have more of an impact?"

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.

Completely misunderstanding my point which has nothing to do with Canadian and/or American depth, or lack thereof in your opinion.

Or Montreal. I don't see Montreal involved at all. Then again, never would have thought Hamilton was either.

Were you by chance reading a post you just typed?

Again, this is not worth arguing. We roster the same number of canucks as every other team. This "we start 8 Canadians" thing is really rather irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant when we have the worse Canadian talent in the CFL & we start 8 instead of 7. Tells you how weak our American talent is as well. To me, it's very relevant. What I mean is that "starting" 8 Canadians isn't really as significant as people make it out to be. 7, 8, 9 whatever the number is of Nationals listed first on the depth chart is not really an indicator of substantial playing time. So we list 8 as starters? We still have the same number on the game day roster as everyone else. As it has been said, if anything this makes it easier to sub guys in and out and not have to worry so much about checking their passport before they run onto the field.

Again, this is not worth arguing. We roster the same number of canucks as every other team. This "we start 8 Canadians" thing is really rather irrelevant.

What a loser. That guy will be broke in no time... Next thing you know he'll be inventing some sort of crazy poop water....

As far as I know, the only people who are uncomfortable with the coach/GM combos around here are the fans and the media.

He was a free agent, we didn't release him.We released him early so he could sign.I stand corrected. My point was that he would have been a free agent 5 days later. It's not like he was released in the middle of his contract.

He was a free agent, we didn't release him.

Duron Carter would be a nice consolation signing.

This is true.

http://www.cfl.ca/article/first-scouting-bureau-ranking-for-2016-draft-class-released TORONTO – The Canadian Football League Scouting Bureau has released its first of three rankings of the top-20 eligible prospects for the 2016 CFL Canadian Draft. Draft Insider Justin Dunk announced the rankings earlier today on CFL.ca. "The 2016 draft class is stocked with lots of high-end talent developed on both sides of the Canada-US border. A number of the top rated players are entering their final years at well regarded NCAA programs. And overall it's a loaded skill position group of athletes." Here is the full ranking: Rank Name POS School 1 Tevaun Smith WR Iowa 2 David Onyemata DL Manitoba 3 Arjen Colquhoun DB Michigan State 4 Elie Bouka DB Calgary 5 Mercer Timmis RB Calgary 6 Josiah St. John OL Oklahoma 7 Dillon Guy OL Buffalo 8 Mitchell Winters DL Miami (Ohio) 9 Mehdi Abdesmad DL Boston College 10 Charles Vaillancourt OL Laval 11 Juwan Brescacin WR Northern Illinois 12 Llevi Noel WR Windsor AKO Fratmen 13 Anthony Thompson DB Southern Illinois 14 Michael Langlois DB Laval 15 Philippe Gagnon OL Laval 16 Doug Corby WR Queens 17 Trent Corney DL Virginia 18 Brett Blaszko WR Calgary 19 Jason Lauzon-Seguin OL Laval 20 George Johnson WR Western

WINNIPEG, MB., September 4, 2015 – The Winnipeg Blue Bombers announce today the club has released the following players: · International quarterback Tyler Russell · International running back Tyler Thomas

Darrin Bauming ‏@DarrinBauming 7m7 minutes ago Mike O'Shea says, by process of elimination, #Bombers starting QB this week will be between Brian Brohm and Dominique Davis.

That's exactly what you don't want to say to a QB starting his first game of the season. Or any game for that matter.

Picard and Kuale are two rather significant examples. You could argue Turner over Collins as well as many others last season when playoffs were out of reach continuing to go with underwhelming vets. I will give him credit for cutting bait with Suber and Korea Banks but they seem to be the exception. Brohm. How much loyalty was there really? He didn't even get a chance to start.

Wrong to whom? The fans? We can criticize all we want and have our reasons for doing so, but we aren't in any position to say his roster moves are wrong, or right.I don't think I know more about football than MOS but evaluation of performance isn't as hard as you make it out to be. He deserves to be questioned.Question O'Shea all you want. Evaluation of players doesn't start and stop with just what you've seen on TV and at the games. There's a lot you don't see, unless you're at every practice and in the meetings.I agree with some of what you're saying but your logic suggests that MOS is infallible and makes all the right decisions because he has access to all the film. History suggests loyalty plays a role in his decision making. For better or for worse. Sometimes we confuse right decisions with winning and wrong ones with losing, when that is not always the case. There's also loyalty, and then there's patience. I'm not sure if there is one, or multiple people in particular that you are referring to O'Shea being loyal to that has been "for worse." Please give an example of this where the player continues to be a detriment to the team, and has shown no improvement. Picard and Kuale are two rather significant examples. You could argue Turner over Collins as well as many others last season when playoffs were out of reach continuing to go with underwhelming vets. I will give him credit for cutting bait with Suber and Korea Banks but they seem to be the exception. Throw last season out the window because we know O'Shea admitted to what he needed to work on during the season. The Picard example I think you could go either way on at this point. We are half way through the season, and while I think getting someone else some reps would give us an idea of where they are in the development, I wouldn't want to be experimenting with too much change at the same time considering who our QB is. Turner I think has earned the chance to get back into form after coming back from injury.

Simmons had one day of reps with the defense. I don't think we'd activate him just to play on ST. He wasn't deemed good enough to play ST in Calgary. You have to ask yourself why? No I don't. Hufnagel would know why. It shouldn't really matter to us.

Wrong to whom? The fans? We can criticize all we want and have our reasons for doing so, but we aren't in any position to say his roster moves are wrong, or right.I don't think I know more about football than MOS but evaluation of performance isn't as hard as you make it out to be. He deserves to be questioned. Question O'Shea all you want. Evaluation of players doesn't start and stop with just what you've seen on TV and at the games. There's a lot you don't see, unless you're at every practice and in the meetings. I agree with some of what you're saying but your logic suggests that MOS is infallible and makes all the right decisions because he has access to all the film. History suggests loyalty plays a role in his decision making. For better or for worse. Sometimes we confuse right decisions with winning and wrong ones with losing, when that is not always the case. There's also loyalty, and then there's patience. I'm not sure if there is one, or multiple people in particular that you are referring to O'Shea being loyal to that has been "for worse." Please give an example of this where the player continues to be a detriment to the team, and has shown no improvement.