TBURGESS

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.

If we lost this game, it would be all about the 5 turnovers. We won, so folks either ignore them or just explain them away. The title of this thread is Nichols is the man. That has a very different connotation than Nichols is more than a serviceable backup QB. Sure Nichols got hit on the first fumble. It's still up to him to hold onto the ball. Wouldn't be any different if it was Willy or Reilly or any other QB for that matter.

2.. both of his fumbles.

Way to gloss over everything. nichols threw deep balls better then marve or brohm. He executed the offense properly. Made better fakes and moved the ball with his feet when needed. Did he play mistake-free? No. Did it look like his first game as a bomber after 4 practices? Yes. I dont think many are clamouring for him to be #1 but many see his value and that he is leagues better then previous QBs.. Give the man his due. If he doesnt make the first downs and move the chains, maybe our defense tires out again.. You're the one whose glossing over his mistakes. Better than Marve/Brohm? Sure. I said as much in my post. 'The Man'? After 1 game? Where he played inconsistently at best? Nah. We've seen lots of QB's have a good half before. Most don't end up being 'The Man'.

Great game by Edmonton last night in the pouring rain. Nice to see that Calgary is indeed beatable. Good fun to watch two good teams taking their shots at each other. Best game of the weekend so far.

It's amazing what a win will do around here. Nichols didn't win the game last night the defence did. Nichols could have cost us the game with 3 turnovers in the first half, but he threw a TD pass (The first since Willy went down?) so now he's 'the man' and should be paid like a starter? IMO, Brohm/Marve/'A dozen or so other backup QB's' have set the bar so low that Nichols just looks like our saviour. He's a big upgrade over our other backup QB's, but lets see what he can do for more than a single game against the worst defence in the league before we make any silly proclamations about him.

Muamba and it's not even close. Star NI's play every down. You hope that backup QB's don't get to see the field for more than 3 or 4 games.

Gotta see it from Muamba's standpoint. If the money's the same (Us Matching), then it's a no brainer to sign with the team that's got a real chance of being the GC winner this year. Closer to home too. I was actually thinking Toronto as Greenwood keeps going down to concussions.

We already did that with Mack. See how that worked out?

Letting folks have another year when they haven't been producing is a bigger problem than firing them and starting over. Assuming we don't make the playoffs, and quite frankly that's a pretty good assumption... Hanging on to O'Shea and the rest of the coaches for another year to see if they improve will end up being like hanging on to Mack for that last year to see if he improved. Same results should be expected.

We'll need 8 or 9 wins to make the playoffs. That means winning 5 or 6 of our last 8 games just to make the last playoff spot. If we lose this week, we will have played the weakest team and will need to win 5 or 6 of the last 7 games. Pretty much next year territory already.

I do it for Testman or Austin too.

I'd absolutely love Huffer back in Winnipeg and I'd be willing to 'overpay' him to get him here and to throw out all of our current coaches and GM if he were to take the position. It would be the same as when BC hired Buono and I'd expect the same results in year 2.

My guess is that MB lasts the rest of the season and the whole coaching staff gets replaced in the offseason.

We've been trying to get rid of Greaves since we signed Bryant and Picard in the offseason. I'm surprised that we got as much for him as we did. The 2nd round pick will come in handy next year to get a top 10 draft pick. Edmonton won't have to start a DT in their O line from now on, which should make them better and they don't need the O lineman they traded now that they've got Greaves.

Good trade for us. Wonder what Edmonton was thinking? I guess Greaves is better than a DT through.