TBURGESS

I did a quick look at the CFL CBA (https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cflpa-collective-agreement-2014.pdf) to find out what the practice rules actually are: Article 6 - Practice times 6.02.5 - 1 a day practices during the season. 6.02.6 - 6 or more days between games players get a day off I don't see anything about a day off after a travel day, but then again, I didn't read the whole thing. It looks like we aren't practicing the maximum amount of time that's allowed in the CBA. If we were winning or even well prepared then this wouldn't be an issue, but we're not, so it's a problem.

Durant or even Glenn could have turned Regina's season around. They'd have won at least some of those close games. I glad Glenn didn't come back a week earlier or we'd only have 3 wins this season.

That's really too bad for Collaros and the Ticats. I hate seeing good to great talent go down to injury. I hope he comes back next season fully healed and ready to go.

I like this signing. I thought Wild was our best defensive player last year. Leggett back to safety? Simmons cut or IR'd? Hurl relegated to rotation guy?

We lost big time to one of the 4 worst teams in the league. The game was over by halftime. Our only 2 'drives' in the first half were aided by Montreal giving us 5 first downs via penalties. One of those penalties gave us an INT back.

Yup. Almost a third of the season left and two teams within a game of us but hey, lets just shut er down.. Unreal. As I said Pretty much everyone knows we're done. You're the exception that proves the rule I guess. Only one of Skn, BC, Wpg and Mtl makes the playoffs. We're 2 points down on Montreal and they have a game in hand. We play Calgary and Edmonton in the next 2 games. Any guess what the results will be? Montreal gets SKN next week and should be 4 points up on us with a game in hand. Ott the next week is a better chance of a win for them than Edm for us. We could be officially out of the playoffs in 2 weeks.

It's not about patience. First you hire the right folks, then you keep them around. Keeping the wrong folks around too long is part of the problem and firing folks mid-season is another part of the problem. This season's done. Pretty much everyone knows this. Sure it would be nice to make the folks responsible pay right away, but then you have to replace them and good coaches have jobs right now. Wait until the day after the season's over then flush the coaching staff and maybe Walters too. Start the search for replacements right now so we're ready to go.

We lose and they're 2 points up on us with a game in hand. We win and we're 2 points up and they have to win the game in hand + an extra win or tie.

Isn't he under contract to the Bombers?

I can't remember any other player taking a CFL tour to talk to several teams to decide where they want to play. Anyone else remember this happening before?

One word Hope. Playing Glenn gives the Riders some hope this year. A few wins would go a long way towards getting the fans to buy season tickets next year and to get rid of the pesky interim tag.

Here's the scorecard so far: HC's who started off with 2 or more losing seasons who went on to greatness: In the NFL... One in the '50's - Lombardi. Two in the 60's - Knoll/Landry. One in the 70's - Walsh. One in the 90's/2000's - Belichick. In the CFL... One in the 80's - Murphy. One in the 90's(After 11 years) - Lancaster. HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who were kept on by their teams in the CFL since 2000 - One - Barrett. So it works out sometimes, just not very often.

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. So you can change the criteria as to when you hire a Coach with a losing record? Like wait 11 years, then it's OK. That's good to know. Nope I'm not changing my criteria at all. Regina canned Lancaster after 2 losing seasons, just like most HC's get canned after 2 or less losing seasons. 11 years later, his first 2 seasons don't mean anything anymore. He might as well be a rookie HC again. I went back through all the CFL HC's for 15 years and found 1 HC who was kept after 2 seasons without playoffs. You had to go back to 1980-1991 to find a failed CFL HC who became good later on, so they are very rare indeed. If hiring losing HC's was a good idea then there would be more than 1 CFL example in 25 (or 35 years if you go back to 1980) where it worked out well.

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. Not CFL and the NFL's a whole different story, but lets look at it anyway. Belichick missed the playoffs in 91-93 and the Browns kept him. Made the playoffs in 94 out of them again in '95. Assistant HC until '99 when the Patriots hired him and gave him full control. He's been mostly great since then. Let's call him the exception that proves the rule.

Also an example of why you don't hire experienced HC's whose only HC experience is in losing.

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? I wouldn't have given Burke the 2nd year. He hadn't shown anything that made me think he could turn the Bombers around. I'll take back PLAP. I wouldn't have given PLAP the extended contract after the GC year, but I wouldn't have canned him after the GC. 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. You're using the total failure of Joe Paopao as an example? Fired after his first year in BC. Ottawa kept giving him more time for 4 years and never saw the playoffs. He's the perfect example of why you don't give losing coaches more time to get it right. I went through all the HC's for all the teams since 2000 looking for one who'd missed the playoffs in their first 2 years and were kept on. Looks like Danny Barrett was the only one. (Even Ron Lancaster was fired for missing the playoffs 2 years in a row) His high point was 2003 at 11-7. Every other year he was .500 or below.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moore had 3 catches against Regina for 103 yards. His first 100 yard game this year. He's 16th in the league in receiving. He had 1 really big year in BC (2013). Other than that, he's put up below average numbers. He's scored a single TD in a year and a half with us and he's been hurt for a bunch of games. All in all, he's a pretty average receiver who's getting top receiver wages. That's the kind of player we need to actively look at replacing in the offseason, not resigning with a raise.

I'll believe it when I see it. Then, I'll cheer for it.

I've got no problem with Austin's actions. I laughed at it when I saw it. I knew there would be a lot of folks around here who'd read a lot into it and would take the opportunity to rag on Austing for it. I don't believe for a moment that it was unintentional. The $5000 fine makes perfect sense to me.

I wouldn't make a generous offer to Moore in the offseason. Too much down time. Too few TD's (1 in 1.5 years). Too few 100 yard games (1st one this year was last game). Bring in some competition for the spot at significantly less money.

BC looked really bad out there today. Beck wasn't good at all. Not a big surprise IMO, but Harris being invisible surprised me. We could still sneak into the last playoff spot.