Armchair GM

Either would be huge. Wonder why Missick would leave a good thing in Calgary? More visibility for a good coach, on a coaching staff that doesn't include Huffer and Dickinson perhaps?

This "players are human - not just money seeking monsters" tack is cute. Of course I recognize a player is in control of where they sign. If OL free agents (especially Heenan and Holmes) don't want to come to WPG, they won't. And I realize that a backup plan is necessary because we won't get everything on our shopping list. I also realize this about players: Opportunity and Money are missions 1a and 1b; sometimes in this order, sometimes in reverse. If you can offer both, and offer the appropriate term for the player, you're in the ballpark. Only then does this cute notion that "playing close to home" is a major consideration come into play. "Human" factors I don't think are as big of a deal as some posters on this board believe. Sure you can point to LaBatte as example 1a; but reportedly we (and possibly others) were in the same ballpark as the Riders on money and opportunity. This regime seems intent on paying what the market demands to fix our OL and CanCon problems, and frankly, accepting any other result if Heenan and/or Holmes reaches free agency would be unacceptable. If Sask's willing to offer $250,000 to Heenan, how much more do we have to pay to get around any desire to remain "close to home." I get that we're cheap Winnipeggers and don't want to overpay... but to get the most valuable CFL assets outside of QB's (marquee NI linemen)... we need to do what needs to be done. Not think about how we're going to allocate that money if we fail.

I don't get the fascination with tying up 2nd WR money on a 3rd import WR in free agency, unless we're going 4 imports at receiver. And we can't do that unless we go at least 4 NI's on our OL. If we can protect the QB with 4+ NI's on our OL, AND play 4 import wideouts, we'll be amazing this year. I doubt Ellingson or Chiles would command very much coin. Neither of them hit 1000 yards and both are import receivers. And if we nab Heenan, and can start Heenan, Greaves, Picard, and Neufeld/Goossen on our OL this year; I'd love Chiles/Ellingson. Just saying that in a world where we've got to start 2 NI's at receiver, I just don't love the idea of tying up cash on something that is probably #5 or lower on our list of priorities behind the OL, Canadian Content, an effective MLB, and a pass rusher.

I don't get the fascination with tying up 2nd WR money on a 3rd import WR in free agency, unless we're going 4 imports at receiver. And we can't do that unless we go at least 4 NI's on our OL. If we can protect the QB with 4+ NI's on our OL, AND play 4 import wideouts, we'll be amazing this year.

No way we sink money into another receiver. We needed to make a big splash last off season to prove to players/agents we would spend money. We tried going after Butler but lost out, Moore was an awesome consolation prize who tragically ended up being injured most of the season. We're going to go hard after Heenan for sure, and probably check the potential of Holmes and Bryant as well. I hope the Bombers will go hard after Ernest Jackson. From an SMS perspective he may give us the most bang for the buck. Willy can't complete passes to even the best route runners if he has no time to throw the ball. Fix the OL and CanCon first, and Moore, Denmark, Watson, and whoever else they field will be more than dangerous enough that we don't need to add a receiver.

It's easy to say that we won't land Heenan because the Bombers are historically cheap asses, and because the Riders love keeping their homegrowns. The reality is that the new regime's #1 focus is on improving the WBB's CanCon, and #1b is on fixing the OL. With Heenan, that's 2 birds with one stone, and I really think they'll spend to the cap to do it for a marquee NI lineman. The other reality is that with Heenan expected to draw top-of-market offers for an OL... there's only so much cap magic the Riders can weave.

I'd be absolutely elated with that staff. It's a bit pie-in-the-sky, but actually somewhat realistic as it does fit with this regime's M.O. of hiring coaches with CFL experience (playing and coaching), and Canadian content.

Tom Anselmi (born c. 1956) is a Canadian sports executive who most recently served as the President and COO for Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment. Anselmi is an alumnus of Ryerson University and University of Saskatchewan. Not sure what qualifications an investment banker would have to be commissioner of the CFL. Investment bankers are regarded as dealmakers at a very high stakes level. I could see how that could benefit a CFL commissioner, who often has to bring two (or more) sides together to make a deal; be it labour, media, or stadiums, etc.

For once I actually agree with something TBURG is saying. If they view Hall and Benevides as capable of making very similar impacts, why put yourself in a situation where you may have to overpay to get Benevides, when you don't have to with Hall? Secondly, Benevides' defense being more different from Etch's than Hall's... wouldn't Hall set up the Bombers for a less difficult transition player-wise? I don't think us fans want tons of changes from our personnel... shift Wild to WIL, size up some of the DL, add an impact tackler at MLB, and we can go with it. Sure, Winnipeg's got a history of being cheap. "Winnipeg" is Ojibway for cheap, actually. But smart shopping makes sense. As long as Hall hits everything on our shopping list for a DC, why do we need to potentially compete for Benevides' services if the impact is perceived as similar to Hall's?

I'm glad he's gone... the interesting question is: Did the evaluation process REALLY take this long, or did they wait until they had a suitable candidate to fill his shoes? Hoping the other shoe drops quickly.

What makes me laugh is how guys describe themselves as "stand up teammates." People are ALWAYS the best judges of their own character, after all.

They're doing what competent management does... operating away from the public spotlight. Almost immediately after BC canned Benevides, Calgary announced their succession plan for Huffer with Dickenson. The moment the WBB discard either or both of MB and Etch, other teams are going to make power plays to keep their top assistants. Why would we make our intentions publicly known, if there's no apparent benefit and a potential downside to doing so? #6 is an extremely well-crafted statement. "We look as good as the rest of the sub-.500 teams." You couldn't possibly be too wrong when you say that... But you are. Winnipeg DC is not a destination job right now. Given potential options in Saskatchewan and BC, those situations will be easier to slide into than Winnipeg's. We've got a lot of personnel that were brought in specifically for fit within Etch's scheme; so there's a lot more work than would be required in a conventional CFL defence here. High reward is available in Winnipeg, but it comes with a higher risk. So again I ask... if it's a high risk/high reward job if it does open up... why wouldn't we hunt for it behind the scenes? The headhunter approach would seem to work much better in this situation than placing an ad in the paper.

When you don't have a destination HC or co-ordinator job (and coming off of 5 really bad years, we don't), you can't walk around like you have one. If you'll recall, the exact same line of thinking you are espousing, is what got us stuck with Etch last year. The better guys took the better jobs, and we got stuck with what was left.

I don't know if we can pin the failings of the 2014 offence on Bellefeuille or the OL. Is Bellefeuille's offence (and Willy) effective with a league average OL or better? Does the offence (and/or the QB) make the OL look worse than it is. Personally, I think both statements are somewhat true. Bellefeuille's offence can't truly be evaluated if the QB is having to improvise as often as Willy had to in 2014; but the guy was a statue in the pocket as the season wore on. I think if we're throwing money at problems, I throw it at the OL and the DC. If the OL improves, Bellefeuille's offence MAY be better in 2015. Etch's scheme is a known quantity, and HE brought in the players he wanted to fit in the scheme. That's not a failure you can lay at the feet of the players.

We're still a recovering organization though. We've been the CFL's worst operation since 2009. Other teams' scraps SHOULD interest us. But should we scrap our co-ordinators, or worse yet throw their names in the wind as "potential to be replaced" before they've found a capable replacement? What if we can't secure that guy? Will the players in the locker room respect their DC if he's openly rumored to be replaced? Good organizations "make their dominoes fall" because they have the luxury of being able to be ahead of their competition. We're not a destination job right now... we can't do that. The hardest thing about being charged with leading a losing organization, is that it's soooo hard to turn it around. Look at Hamilton in the 2000's. Took them over 10 years of futility.

Your Post - - This is what I am trying to say. I am looking for some sign of life from management .... not entitlement to every little detail. This feels like the silent treatment to me ... and we as fans are just supposed to be good soldiers and endure whatever the generals send our way .... I have got better things to do with my life Should the organization be expected to operate in the open? Is it fair to those within the organization, for the organization to publicly be discussing their fate (with knowledge that fans on fanboards are doing it already)? Fan entitlement is about the worst. The Bombers front office is NOT closed for business. They're playing their cards close to their vest. The way a professional organization does. How do you say "We're waiting to see if we can improve at OC, DC, or anywhere else;" without telling people their jobs are in jeopardy? "We're still evaluating the coaching situation" is about the most dignified way. I think too many people over the years got used to really poor management operating really poorly for all to see. Kelly spoke too much and too defiantly, Berry was known to fly off the handle at players, Mack hated the media and was well known to avoid trades or CFL free agents. Burke threw players under the bus and spoke too freely honestly about things that should stay behind closed doors. For years, the operations of this club were on public display, and spectacularly badly. I for one applaud Miller/Walters/O'Shea for restoring some professionalism and dignity to the operation.

Because he has a proven track record and most people ignore Sasks woes because of injured qb and crap receivers dropping balls. MB has never shown an elite offense and the fans are tired of mediocrity on offense. What do you suggest the blue do? Cortez from everything I've read, has a very strong personality that leads to short tenures everywhere he has coached recently. Talent or not, is that really what we want here?

Not defending Etch, but if one gets a mulligan, the other should. Lets not forget Kuale playing LB which is the equivalent of a crappy o-line. Lets not forget as well as Wild was lost for a good chuck of the season, as well as Zack Anderson going down. Our sack total just stopped once he was gone. Can't we give Kuale a mulligan too, because it was his first year in Winnipeg? What a disgusting premise. In a perfect world, we get rid of 2 underperforming co-ordinators, but I get that the Bombers big 3 are trying to bring some stability to a franchise sorely lacking since about 2008. For that reason, I see a max of one change, and yeah, it's likely that if one co-ordinator goes, that MB gets the mulligan. Bellefeuille's offence did show some signs of proficiency, until the OL got exposed, and Willy caught deer in the headlights syndrome. Etch's scheme was again exposed as undersized, and un-adaptive. This despite the fact that he brought in players that fit his scheme, and shooed out guys that didn't. The worst part is that if we keep Etch, our D will be terrible next year and we'll expect it to be. If we replace him, our D will still be terrible, as we try to adapt players under contract to a different defense. But at least we'd be one year closer to not being terrible, and we'll have hope that towards the last third of the year, our D could be good again.

Wouldn't be a crazy move for the Argos. Harris looks ready, Gale is a good prospect, Ray has the worst shoulder injury possible, Desjardins is dumb so he'll overpay for sure. The Argos could also possibly take on Burris as a veteran backup at a reduced salary in that scenario. Since when do the Argos make shrewd moves? Shrewd doesn't fit sports teams in that city.

Woah, dude...is that a promise? LOL... Etch is predictable to a T. Predictable that he'll employ an undersized defense. Predictable that he'll send the house on almost every down and be vulnerable over the middle. Predictable that it'll find some early season success, and that success be unsustainable. And predictable that it will not adapt to defend against these holes that other teams are exploiting. So yeah, it's a little painful to hear people proclaiming how right they were on Etch. You're unqualified to post on a football board if you didn't see this coming.

I feel the need to give a "small c" congratulations to everyone who made the Etcheverry failure prediction. Be correct on a less obvious call and I'll lick and preen you like you want. TBieber's well-researched point though is all you need to know about the Bombers, and has little to do with Etch. 3-0 when winning the turnover battle, 3-8 when losing it. Guys, we're winning more than a third of games where we turn the ball over more than the opposition, so technically speaking we are doing better than we should be. More importantly, we've lost the turnover battle in 11 of 15 games. That's why we're not a playoff team. Give us a DC with a better scheme, and some better players in 2015, and we MIGHT gain 2-3 defensive turnovers... but to put it all on Etch is wrong. Special teams in particular we've had many turnovers. I can't find stats on it, but we have to be at or near the top of the league in ST turnovers. We're a young team on offense, and our players need to progress over the offseason, specifically in playing well without making as many poor decisions with the football. Want a defence that is less predictable, and less vulnerable to big backs and dump-offs over the middle? Fire Etch. But if what we want is to win games... it starts with NOT TURNING THE DAMN BALL OVER AS MUCH.

Bellefeuille's likeliest guy to be first out the door. It's becoming easier by the week to point to how ineffective and predictable his schemes are. Secondly, O'Shea inherited Bellefeuille. Sure, he wasn't *given* the OC job, but he was inherited by the new regime because he was less than awful in picking up the pieces last year. I personally don't see any good in retaining Etch either. The book on beating the Etch D is in print in its 15th edition... bully the small front 7, and burn the pass rush with screens over the middle. Josh McCown was a "system QB" in Chicago last year. TERRIBLE in Tampa this year. In the same vein, Greg Peach is a "system DE" in Etch's system. I'd lump Sherman in there too. The really big problem with retaining Etch another year is that we'd spend another year bringing in "system" players that will be totally useless to our next DC. The alternative that I'm giving zero credence to is that Etch's D could evolve and be excellent. That's just so unlikely though. All of this said, O'Shea is loyal, sometimes to a fault. For that reason Etch is likelier than Bellefeuille to be back next year. But I'll go on record as saying Etch is more detrimental long-term to the WBB than Marcel. Tracey? I have no strong feelings towards Tracey, and no problems seeing him get another year at the helm of ST's.

Wish Sears could draw in for us too... ratio victim at SAM, but why can't we play him at WIL? Just not accustomed enough to the position? Or do we actually like Desia Dunn more?

By "qualified" sports reporter, you mean curling and horse racing beat man, right?

I'd really like to know what precipitates posts like this. You absolutely should demand the best from your players. That's how you get the most out of your players. And when your HC is known to be one of the best ST'ers and Cdn LB's in CFL history, you have a shining example to hold your players up to. We should be upset that we lost that game. We should be upset when we lose any game. But I have no idea what you saw that led you to believe O'Shea is going to blow an Austin nut. Different kind of guy.