TBURGESS

We aren't discussing whether or not he would be a good DC. Just whether or not it would be unrealistic to expect him to know how to Design a Defense along with another DC (Etch), which is what your original statement was. That it would be unrealistic to assume so. I'm simply stating that since he's already shown he can take on field experience and transfer that to a playbook via Special teams. It isn't unrealistic that he could also do that for a Defense. Whether or not it would work out is another discussion all together. If he were a former DC at any level then I'd agree with you. As he wasn't I don't. So only DC's can recognize or design defensive schemes then? I'm betting that lots of defensive position coaches can, to various degrees do it, and I'm willing to bet that some players can too. I know this because there is no "magic" that happens once someone is named defensive coordinator. They are not suddenly able to do things that they couldn't do before, it's just that they are now being paid and given the responsibility for doing it. So does O'shea have a background that might allow him to help a DC put together a defensive package? Of course he does. Arguing that he doesn't is just plain silly. Would O'Shea be really good at doing it? Maybe, maybe not. Nope, you're just not getting it and going way off on a tangent. Expecting a HC with 4 years coaching experience total, none of it as a DC, to fix Etch's schemes when he's been a coach since 1980 and a DC since 1994 is ridiculous. No GM, even ours, would expect that to happen. If our HC was an ex-DC, then expecting him to help and fix Etch's schemes would be realistic.

We aren't discussing whether or not he would be a good DC. Just whether or not it would be unrealistic to expect him to know how to Design a Defense along with another DC (Etch), which is what your original statement was. That it would be unrealistic to assume so. I'm simply stating that since he's already shown he can take on field experience and transfer that to a playbook via Special teams. It isn't unrealistic that he could also do that for a Defense. Whether or not it would work out is another discussion all together. If he were a former DC at any level then I'd agree with you. As he wasn't I don't.

O'Shea was a great MLB and a great STC, but he's never tried to be a DC so we really don't know if he can do that job or not. You can assume he can, but then again most folks assumed he'd be a great HC and he's been a bust so far.

O'Shea's never been a DC so it would be unrealistic for them to expect he'd be able to fix Etch's D by mid-season. I disagree. Due to his experience as a player. He has been a part of some great defenses. And if you hear his former team mates speak, he was basically a coach on the field. He knows the CFL defense and could design one if needed. I have a hard time believing a future HOF MLB wouldn't know how. Especially one that spent basically his entire life around the Canadian game. MO was a great MLB no question about it but being part of great defences and designing great defences are two totally different skillsets.

There were other options that could have been choosen from...ones that all we needed to do was offer some $$ and make it a non-lateral move from where they were and it could have happened. But they chose Hall, and he didn't come at a low ball salary either. He was a good and I think right hire to re-establish a sense of a usefull CFL defence. There was really nothing wrong with his schemes and his game adjustments, more a matter of a couple players shy of really having a good defence, and the fact that it was a new system and an obvious learning curve for all. Next year I bet people will be raving about or defence. Pretty sure Oshea knows MB was not the guy to bring us forward but when Willy went down we were handcuffed (especially before we got Nichols) and trying to install a new system amd philosophy with a stable of relative rookie or green to the CFL quarterbacks and not really being experienced with what to look for, how to attack and how to adjust to the Canadian game would have been an utter disaster of massive proportions and would have hurt us moving forward bigtime and made this place look like a looney bin organization. Sticking with MB was the only choice and Oshea used great judgement and a set of balls to take the heat and if it came to it fall on the sword for the organization and his players. One of the reasons that he is loved and respected by players, and not just on the Bombers and why guys never really quit on him. The players we want to keep never did and the few that looked like they were slacking off are probably already decided upon as not being back anyway. The fault of this team for years has been to keep throwing consistancy and dedicated time into things, bringing us to where we are the last decade. I always like your posts. Well thought out and presented. That being said.... I agree that Hall was a good hire. He was my second choice behind Benevides because I prefer an attacking defence. I read that we offered both of them the job and Benevides turned us down. I'm not sure what Hall is making compared to the other DC's in the league, but his experience would suggest he's going to get more than average. Hall's hiring doesn't relieve O'Shea from the responsibility of Etch's hiring and O'Shea had 2 good candidates to choose from. BTW: 2014 - Etch - Avg Yards per game against = 338.6 = 8th in the league, 2015 - Hall - Avg Yards Per game against = 394.2 = 8th in the league. MB got us the 9th ranked offense in 2014 in Net Yards and Avg Net offence. That's actually worse than Etch's 8th ranked defence in yards against and net yards per game against. Bringing him back in the name of consistency seems to have worked, because we were still last in Avg Yard Per Game this year. The only time you want consistency is when you're above average to good, not when you're the last in the league. I would much rather have seen Willy learn a new offense where he didn't take so many hits then trotted back out to get creamed over and over in the MB offence. The fault of this team for years hasn't been a lack of consistency. It's been a lot of bad hires. We constantly go for the rookies and cross our fingers that they will become the next good to great CEO, GM or HC. When they fail, we end up having to pay them out and start over again. When we do pay for experience, we choose candidates with a history of failure with mostly bad teams instead of 'overpaying' for guys with good experience on winning teams. This year's coaches of the year candidates show what we should be doing. Both have been coaching since the mid-90's. Both have coached at a high level with good teams who find ways to win. Both have found ways to make their teams highly competitive.

O'Shea's never been a DC so it would be unrealistic for them to expect he'd be able to fix Etch's D by mid-season.

I like experience, but it would have been better to go with an unknown than to hire Etch. A lot of fans knew Etch was a bad choice from the get go because his history pretty much guaranteed failure. I expect the HC to be smarter than most fans so Etch should never have been hired in the first place. Etches defence was clearly a disaster, but O'Shea still got up in front of the mike almost daily and supported him. He even kept Etch on for a while in the off season and tried to get him to change his defence, so they did waste time even after the season before they got rid of him. I wonder if Hall and Benevides hadn't been available if Etch would have been fired at all last year.

O'Shea didn't just make a mistake with MB. He made a mistake hiring MB, Tracey and Etch. He made a mistake when he only replaced Etch last offseason. Folks around here want to give O'Shea a pat on the back for hiring Hall but no responsibility for hiring Etch in the first place. BTW: If Hall wanted to stay as a CFL DC, he had no other choice but Winnipeg, so I'm not sure you can call it a great O'Shea hire as much as a good DC was available who had no other choices. They also want to give him an attaboy for firing Tracey mid-season without holding him responsible for either hiring Tracey in the first place or keeping him on after last year. Now they want to say that MB is 'THE' problem on the team and that O'Shea shouldn't bear any responsibility for hiring him or keeping him for 2 years. For me, it's a pattern of O'Shea not realizing that he's made a mistake followed by not admitting his mistakes followed by finally having to get rid of the mistakes.

Again... not one single person said that... 7-11 or 8-10 is close to .500... 9-9 is exactly .500 ...10-8 or better is over .500... I think that's universally accepted terminology... So you're saying if the team goes 11-7 next year... gets 2nd in the west... maybe makes it to the west finals... that's not good enough for you? The post right before mine said 7-11 was the magic number this year, so yes at least one person said it and there are many more who would just be happy to make the playoffs not matter what after the last few years of futility. Close to .500 means close to .500. It doesn't mean under .500. If I meant under .500 that's what I would have typed. 11-7 would have got us 3rd in the west and 4th overall. Yup... that would have been good enough for me. It's certainly better than the 5 wins which made us the 8th best team. I doubt we win an additional 6 games next year or 120% better than this year, but sure... I'd be happy with it next year. gncXX... This isn't moving the goalposts and I'd be ecstatic if we went 18-0 next year and won the cup. Actually .. it does .. close is just reference to the proximity two objects / points have to one another and ... Oh why bother. Close to can be over or under. Why bother indeed?

Ottawa Redblacks coach Rick Campbell and Edmonton Eskimos coach Chris Jones are the nominees for the 2015 Annis Stukus Trophy, awarded to the CFL coach of the year... http://www.tsn.ca/campbell-jones-cfl-coach-of-year-finalists-1.392555 Might as well add them to the Award Finalist group.

Again... not one single person said that... 7-11 or 8-10 is close to .500... 9-9 is exactly .500 ...10-8 or better is over .500... I think that's universally accepted terminology... So you're saying if the team goes 11-7 next year... gets 2nd in the west... maybe makes it to the west finals... that's not good enough for you? The post right before mine said 7-11 was the magic number this year, so yes at least one person said it and there are many more who would just be happy to make the playoffs not matter what after the last few years of futility. Close to .500 means close to .500. It doesn't mean under .500. If I meant under .500 that's what I would have typed. 11-7 would have got us 3rd in the west and 4th overall. Yup... that would have been good enough for me. It's certainly better than the 5 wins which made us the 8th best team. I doubt we win an additional 6 games next year or 120% better than this year, but sure... I'd be happy with it next year. gncXX... This isn't moving the goalposts and I'd be ecstatic if we went 18-0 next year and won the cup.

9-9 is .500. One or two games above 9-9 is close to .500. That's not making anything up. That's what folks around here think. Some would be happy with just making the playoffs at 7-11. The last 4 years have set the bar so low that simply making the playoffs would be considered good enough.

Guys who have jobs that they're not likely to leave for a lateral move. Why not just wish for Austin or Hufnagel while we've got our heads in the clouds? Guys who have jobs because other teams want them. That makes them more, not less desirable. It would cost more than picking from the coaches the other teams don't want but that money doesn't come out of the SMS so who cares and they're much more likely to be useful right off the bat. There's lots of reasons one or more might want to take our OC job: Might want to coach where it matters instead of Toronto where they get maybe 10K out to a game. Might want to get out from the shadow of their HC to prove that's not the reason they're good at what they do. Might want to get a direct shot at being an HC sooner than waiting behind their current HC's. They might be able to do that by mid-season next year. Might want more money than they are currently making. Might want to have the Assistant HC title for their resume and O'Shea said he's OK with that. Why not Austin or Hufnagel? Sure if we were replacing O'Shea and Walters, but unfortunately that's not happening. And then come to Winning instead where we fire coaches like it's going out of style? Not great for the resume because a lot of coaches have had their reputations damaged coaching in Winnipeg for a variety of reasons. Even things like token assistant HC titles and more money aren't enough to lure people out of good situations. Be a realist here, would love leave a good stable environment to come to Winnipeg? Is that really the best career move for any of those guys? Better off correctly identifying an up and comer and hiring him. Coaching contracts are paid out even when we fire them, so getting a 2 or 3 year contract means stability in an unstable career and I doubt anyone who has choices would take the job for less than a 2 year contract. Lots of coaches have failed in Winnipeg. That's why we fire them and that's what hurts their reputations. Being a realist, I gave you lots of reasons why good coaches would come to Winnipeg and we haven't correctly identified an up and comer in the last 25 or so years so what makes you think we will this time around?

6 other teams lost their starting QB for large parts of the season. Only 1 finished below us in the standings, so losing Willy's not the only problem.

So O'Shea's poor records of the last 2 years means he only needs close to .500 next year to get even more years as our HC? Way to keep bar low folks. I thought MO would need a playoff spot to keep his job this year. Turns out that the Bomber management thinks 5 wins was good enough so I have no idea how low they set the bar next year.

Guys who have jobs that they're not likely to leave for a lateral move. Why not just wish for Austin or Hufnagel while we've got our heads in the clouds? Guys who have jobs because other teams want them. That makes them more, not less desirable. It would cost more than picking from the coaches the other teams don't want but that money doesn't come out of the SMS so who cares and they're much more likely to be useful right off the bat. There's lots of reasons one or more might want to take our OC job: Might want to coach where it matters instead of Toronto where they get maybe 10K out to a game. Might want to get out from the shadow of their HC to prove that's not the reason they're good at what they do. Might want to get a direct shot at being an HC sooner than waiting behind their current HC's. They might be able to do that by mid-season next year. Might want more money than they are currently making. Might want to have the Assistant HC title for their resume and O'Shea said he's OK with that. Why not Austin or Hufnagel? Sure if we were replacing O'Shea and Walters, but unfortunately that's not happening.

Theres no such management 101 to cover what you're saying.Nobody hires personnel with the idea that they will fail. You might have a backup plan, but if you're thinking the personnel you hire might fail, you're setting yourself up to fail yourself, and really,,why in hell would you do that? That may be your management style, but it sure as hell isnt mine. Everyone you hire might fail and you should know that going in. If you assume everyone you hire won't fail, then you are setting yourself up for failure, not the other way around. Insulating yourself from failure goes a long way towards being seen as the right guy for the job. My management style is to define exactly what I expect, to expect a lot from my people and to give them personal responsibility for their own jobs. I don't expect either them or myself to be infallible.

I never suggested that Walters set up the scouting department to fail. I said he set up the scouting department in part to insulate himself in case they did fail. Mack didn't do that and took all the heat for the bad drafting and lack of depth. Walters has a scouting department to blame. It's not a conspiracy. It's management 101. I don't think that O'Shea kept MB and Tracey only so he had coordinators to fire this year, but it sure worked out well for him. If he had the foresight to fire them last year, he'd be a better HC but he'd probably be unemployed right now.

Tracey was hardly a young up and comer. He was one of O'Shea's coaches at Guelph.

I honestly don't think we can do any better than O'Shea as our STC. Maybe a good place to bring in a young guy to get experience while having O'Shea do the real work.

MB came to the end of his contract so it cost nothing to get rid of him. I don't know where the rest of the offensive coaches contracts stand, but I'd guess they are all either over this year or next. Any offensive coaches with a contract for next year will have a leg up on their replacements because the team won't have to pay twice for the same position coaches if we keep them. It is funny that losing Willy is an excuse to keep O'Shea but not an excuse to keep MB.

You can't be serious with this post. He kept 2 people on that he knew couldn't do the job, so that he could have them around to fire , to save his job? There is no list. At least one that were aware of, so you don't know if other team's coordinators are, or aren't, on this list/no list.You seriously think that he'd still be around now if he'd fired Tracey and MB last year and still had a similar record? The other alternative is that he actually thought those two coordinators were good at their jobs, which brings his ability to tell good from bad into question. The list I'm talking about is the names that the fans and media have been putting together. PLAP, Buck, Khari, Howell, etc... Better choices would be Brady, Condell, Cortez. Guys who have options who we'd have to pay more and who would want to move to get a shot at a HC job and/or to get out from the shadow of good HC's. I doubt O'Shea would want to pick one of them though because they would all be better choices for the HC job too. If it's one thing we've learned about OS'hea, it's that he will put what's good for the organization ahead of what's good for him. He didn't hire Etch to have a throwaway coach, he basically had to hire him because there was no one left.MB? yech. Retaining MB instead of firing both mediocre coordinators, the brain thrust acquiesced to the feeling to the safety of having someone you know as opposed to not looking for the next one. And for continuity. He was wrong. But to suggest he kept a bad coach as a buffer is ridiculous. And just how do you know MOS doesn't have your list in mind? When had O'Shea ever put the good of the organization ahead of his own opinion? When he kept Kuale or MB or Tracy or Bryant or Hurl? He hired Etch because he was a longtime friend same goes for Tracey. Keeping either of them after last year was a recipe for continued failure. Not only did O'Shea keep coaches around that he should have fired for the good of the organization, Walters set up a scouting group to take the heat for any failures to bring in better talent. It's management 101... Have someone to blame or you're going to take the heat yourself and probably get fired.

You can't be serious with this post. He kept 2 people on that he knew couldn't do the job, so that he could have them around to fire , to save his job? There is no list. At least one that were aware of, so you don't know if other team's coordinators are, or aren't, on this list/no list. You seriously think that he'd still be around now if he'd fired Tracey and MB last year and still had a similar record? The other alternative is that he actually thought those two coordinators were good at their jobs, which brings his ability to tell good from bad into question. The list I'm talking about is the names that the fans and media have been putting together. PLAP, Buck, Khari, Howell, etc... Better choices would be Brady, Condell, Cortez. Guys who have options who we'd have to pay more and who would want to move to get a shot at a HC job and/or to get out from the shadow of good HC's. I doubt O'Shea would want to pick one of them though because they would all be better choices for the HC job too.

O'Shea should have let MB and Tracey go at the end of last year. He kept them on, in a large part, to have someone else to fire to keep his job this year. If he'd pulled the trigger when he should have, he wouldn't have lasted this year as there wouldn't be anyone but him to blame. The list of possible OC's is so Winnipeg. Whose failing career can we try to salvage? Which of our old players can we give a job to? Which Winnipeggers or those with a Winnipeg family can we give the job to? Who can we promote from within to a job they've never done before? A better way to go about this would be to ask which teams are running the best offenses and can we hire their OC away from them? It would not only make us better but our competition worse.

Willy's a good QB, but elite's a top 3 guy and Willy's not there right now. Not sure I'd even put him ahead of Harris TBH. Time and injuries will tell if he ever makes it to elite status.