Mark H.

The Big Blue were in an almost identical situation - back in 2013 when they hired O'Shea.  

Ok. But there was also 'pretty good authority' saying Pierce was the front runner. 

Osh was a huge risky pick...100 percent....But we wanted a culture shift, and thats who Wde and Walters identified as who to best run what they envisioned...They also wanted a fresh face not far removed from today's player as well...which was key..

Some would suggest that Osh was the more risky pick with his Coordinator experience having been in STs.

Yep. I"d say the Riders need to go with 3 imports on the OL, like the Bombers did not that long ago.  But who's going to find good ones? Sure as cuss not O'Day.

Buck is going to be back
 

Wilson is an interesting one. Larger pigrome Esq guy. Doesn’t have great down field passing ability but better short and intermediate than you would expect for such a dynamic runner who bounced around a lot. 
 
tbh you could fix an ol real fast if you flipped ratio real hard. Start 3 ol and run a heavy 6man set full time or 4 with just 5 and things would improve fast.  Just no one wants to do that and flip extra WRs, RBs etc to ni. 
Beat me to it. I think that’s the min but ya. 
 Just poach ex bomber imp ol pr guys that’s what most of the league seems to be doing lol. 

Yep. I"d say the Riders need to go with 3 imports on the OL, like the Bombers did not that long ago.  But who's going to find good ones? Sure as cuss not O'Day.

Yep. I"d say the Riders need to go with 3 imports on the OL, like the Bombers did not that long ago.  But who's going to find good ones? Sure as cuss not O'Day.

It is crazy how such a poorly coached team with aging unproductive players and no depth keeps going to Grey Cups. 
 
 

At no point did I say it wasnt. I stated that it was way, way down the list of reasons why we lost and I stand by that.  FACT: That was a winnable game with the roster we had dressed. FACT: Our own mistakes cost us that game. FACT: Buck and RIchie Hall did not have very good game plans. FACT: 3 red zone turnovers took a potential 21 points, and a guaranteed 9 points off the board that would have secured us victory easily. When you add all that up, where does roster management stand in all of that. Very low in the order of importance. It would be different if the Jeffs looked gassed, or Biggie was completely ineffectual, or we were not able to drive on the ALs...which we did...just turnovers cost us points. However, we did all that and made some key mental and ball security mistakes and it cost us the game.
I get that some of you guys really want to pin this on the roster management boogeyman that we have been hearing ad nauseum about all year, but it simply was not the case in the Grey Cup. A very small contributing factor....MAYBE...can not even say that for sure. What I can tell you for sure is that when you turn the ball over 3 times in the red zone against a D like the ALs...you stand a very good chance of losing that game and we did. Not sure why everyone is so myopically fixed on the whole roster management thing that you are forgetting football 101.

I guess if folks can't just leave it alone...
 

and you know that how??...
Losing Wade or Walters and his team would be more a blow....and it takes a lot for me to defend Wade as I use to just hate the dude from back in the day, but totally respect him for the turn around and creating what we have become....and now have nothing but love and gratitude for the guy

I'm not saying it was the right decision. It's just a different argument/decision that what we've been having. People are moving the goalposts.
MOS made a comment about none of our players, that he can see, are "aging out". The roster management decisions (like keeping Jackson on at the expense of another receiver) are a different argument than Brandon Alexander is too old and is hurting the team. 
Bighill, Bryant, Collaros, Alexander, etc. may have lost a step form their prime, but none of them are liabilities out there (Injuries notwithstanding). And the depth guys like Briggs, whoever you bring in for them (rando Canadian draft pick from the last couple of years) isn't going to be so much more valuable that they make the impact the game is a way that some of you seem to think. 
_______________________________________
But completely separate from the "Aging out" discussion is the rostering decisions, which were just crazy in a lot of cases.
Jackson was a waste of a spot, period. Should have been used on a DL that we didn't even seem to have. That is at least partly a scouting fail. We ran without depth in the secondary for most of the season and mostly never hurt ys, but easily could have. And I guess it's fine if you want to commit to a "jack knife" as your receiver depth if that's what you feel your offense needs, but if he's the guy you trust, he needs to be active in a game in which the rest of your receivers are injured. If you don't trust him in that role, you needed to be developing a different guy all year - roster/scouting fail. 

I guess if folks can't just leave it alone...
 

Also, Cory Mace just announced as Riders HC.........
 
 

Man some of this discussion ìs great football convo and some of it is a bit of a reach. 
We got guys saying Zac is declining and needs replacing while others are saying our secondary is overrated because our offence led by Zac was so dominant they never saw the field. Just extreme takes everywhere that contradict. I guess some are still really smarting from the loss.

This. When people show you who they are, believe them. 

Sources say the management team will all be making league minimum, as their salaries are being offset by a generous donation from previously unknown local business man "Made Willer".

How much did injuries play in the lack of a passing game? I'd say a lot. Now, blame MOS for not bringing in any wide receivers to be ready to go when needed. That's on him. BOO & Ambles never played. Why? Instead, we had Schoen who couldn't jump, cut or pull away on his routes & an injured Nic Demski. They really weren't difference makers but Osh played them anyway. I blame him for our passing woes as he's the HC. The final decisions on personnel are all his. 

I don't bother looking at the FA lists until a week before the end of FA season. Most of them will be re-signed by their own clubs. 

2001 for sure. 
For fun. 93/94 had an equal or arguably better top end set of skill players. David Williams and Alfred Jackson were an amazing 1-2. I’d argue equal to Schoen/Lawler. 
Brady > Blaze Bryant/Richardson 
The depth kind of sucked back then though. Think Allan Boyko and Jamie Holland vs Bailey and Woli. 
I’d rank it
01-02,
23,
92-94
 

That's a big maybe.
93/94 with Dunigan healthy
And for sure 2001
 

Ok good. If Buck moves on I want a clean break from residual Lapo with a new system, never mind the man himself coming back. 

I’m sure he’s a hell of a nice guy but the Lapo offence definitely has a ceiling. 
Every year since 2016 whoever our OC is gets penciled in for the Sask job. 
I’ll believe it when I see it. 
 
If anything, the job in Ottawa seems more appealing but I really don’t see Buck leaving here. 
If we’re going to lose an assistant hypothetically, it’s Jordan Younger I’d be most unhappy about. 

I find it hilarious that you break down Collaros's playoff numbers in isolation while suggesting Kelly is his equal after maybe the worst playoff performance in a generation. You point to playoffs ONLY as an indicator of next year's performance for Collaros but if that is the case the two guys you say may surpass him should be cut this offseason based on beyond horrible playoff performances themselves. That's the danger of cherry picking games to support your argument..it doesn't show the full body of work.
Qbs rarely are stellar in the playoffs. That's just a function of defences playing harder and cold weather. Zac was the best QB in the CFL this year and there is more reason to believe VA and CK will regress than ZC.