TrueBlue4ever

My point is how do you know that they are being underused or ignored, or that they could be better utilized. Maybe they can’t be because they just aren’t good enough. Maybe they aren’t being thrown to because, rather than being ignored, they just aren’t getting open. Maybe McGuire isn’t being played because he doesn’t have the talent to lead the team yet, and like EVERY OTHER 3rd string QB in this league, will be kept holding a clipboard in his first year. Maybe it has nothing to do with the O.C. and everything to do with the player’s ability in the first place. My point is the only objective way to say it is the O.C. and not the player’s ability is to see who suffocated here and then went on to thrive elsewhere. Otherwise our assessments of a clearly superior player being handcuffed by a clearly inept O.C. Is pure opinion with no objective basis in fact to validate it beyond our own inherent pre-formed biases.

Your avatar actually makes that joke funnier.

4 in 14 years (OK, I looked it up). Missed the playoffs 5 times, injured one year, and lost 8 playoff games. Nichols has made the playoffs every year he has been the starter here, FYI.

True that. He spent 6 years bumming around NFL practice rosters and not playing at all, so I did not realize he is 31. But not a lot of mileage on the body, and he has put up some decent numbers on a very bad team. Maybe he'll be a late bloomer? Khari Jones was 29 when he joined the Bombers, made MOP at 31.

Gerald Alphin Chris Armstrong Eddie Brown Terrence Edwards Craig Ellis Terry Evanshen Tony Gabriel Stephen Jones Hal Patterson Kamau Peterson Jamel Richardson Geroy Simon Gerald Wilcox

Personnel?

So you're saying once O'Shea decided to input these players into our roster on offence, LaPo found a way to utilize them in his scheme, and our offence improved because of it?

No, no, no. Your argument was that LaPo cannot elevate the talent he has. I gave you examples of players who had talent and have had their best performances under a LaPo offence. A.K.A had their performance elevated under his scheme. If a player did not elevate his talent under LaPo, maybe it had something to do with a lack of talent to begin with that could not be elevated by anyone. But show me a player who got better after getting out of LaPo's system and was elevated by different coaching? Then I will consider the merit of your argument.

I would say thriving elsewhere matters most, as it gives an objective standard to measure the system here versus elsewhere, as opposed to a personal opinion as to who is above average or not. Flanders and Augustine both did well here when given the chance, but their restriction was being slotted behind Harris, not handcuffed due to LaPo's play-calling. Blame the depth chart and the head coach's roster decisions for them, not the OC play-calling. As for the receivers, well hard to make a definitive statement on them, since we are run heavier than all other teams. But none of them have shown enough obvious game-breaking talent that they warrant a fundamental change in the playbook to get them the ball a dozen times a game and for us to change to a passing game. And our current QB/RB combo would have a lot to do with the decision to avoid the pass, no? Darvin Adams was able to put up a 1,000 yard season in this offence, Woli is a very good blocker and runs decent routes, but he isn't a burner, has dropped a few this year, and doesn't look like he is being ignored despite getting great separation from DBs this year (because he really isn't busting coverages). Bailey was not being given a chance to start, again a roster decision and not a play-calling one. And since his QB has been the pass-averse Streveler, maybe his running QB has something to do with his lack of production (in limited sample size). Whitehead for all his speed does not seem to get separation much on long downfield routes (from the iso replays I have seen). So lousy may be an exaggeration, but I would say above-average is as well. LaPo runs the offence based on what he has to work with, and I believe pretty much everyone thought our receiving corps was sub-par going into the season and crying out for a Matthews, Zylstra or a Duke Williams to get picked up. Not sure where all these underused stars suddenly materialized from in the eyes of the fans. Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the right one. We were 7-2 with a #1 scoring and efficiency, ball-control style offence (not flashy, but effective). Then our QB got hurt. We have struggled to win since then. With our back-up. Not all his fault, as the D has collapsed at times. But the fundamental offensive change was at QB. That result doesn't fit the agenda of many who wanted Nichols gone from the start of the year and figured Strev was the guy to lead us to the promised land. He has not lived up to the hype, so people look for a scapegoat to save face and credibility in their opinions, and have pinned it on LaPo. He is not above criticism himself, but axing him is not the only obvious solution here, as so many wish it would be.

Bowman may be the only arguable player who thrived after LaPo. However, in his one year with LaPo as his head coach, he did put up 925 yards and 6 TDs so he hardly suffered here. And his big issue was drops, not restrictive play-calling.

So who is above average in your mind but failing solely due to the system? Better yet, who has proven it was the system by leaving and producing better results elsewhere?

That is such a ridiculous comment. You say that LaPo did well only because he had great players in 2002 (I believe you said even you could have crafted a great offensive game plan with that talent). So when he does well (like 14 club records on offence in 2002) all the credit goes to the player, not him. But if a player does not do well, it's because LaPo has not "elevated" them, so he gets all the blame. Maybe, just maybe, the "talent" right now is not as earth shattering as some think. But for the sake of argument, let's look at the talent LaPo has had in the past and now. In 2002, he took an MVP QB and that QB produced even better numbers than the year before and according to Milt Stegall should have won MOP that year too. He took an all-star receiver and got him to the greatest receiving season of that receiver's career and lifted him to MOP status and league records. He took a part-time running back and made him a star in the backfield, and the next year got him his first league rushing title. Also the 2 best receiving years of Roberts' career those 2 seasons. He went to Saskatchewan and turned Darian Durant into an all-star and got them to the Grey Cup. He came to Winnipeg and found a way in 2011 to keep Buck Pierce healthy long enough for Buck to have his most productive season ever and get to a Grey Cup. Like with Khari before him, once he lost his effective starting QB due to injury, the lesser talent at back-up hindered him. Now that he is back, he has "elevated" Andrew Harris into bar none the best running back in the CFL. Harris had zero rushing titles and two 1,000 yard seasons before coming here, will get his 3rd consecutive 1,000 yard year (and second 1,300+ yard year), and his 3rd rushing title, on top of becoming the best receiving running back in CFL history in 2017. He took Matt Nichols and devised a system that minimized his weaknesses (average arm strength, low mobility) and fed off his strengths (passing accuracy, "game manager", low turnover risk) to create the most efficient QB in the CFL this year who had the team #1 in the CFL standings before he got hurt. But you expect the entire playbook to be thrown out to cater to a new QB who does little else but run the ball and hasn't shown he can pass very well rather than expect management to have as a back-up someone who can step into the existing system and execute it to relatively the same degree, like Calgary, Sask, and Hamilton did. And LaPo to a great extent has tweaked that playbook to incorporate more runs and option/pass from his QB. But having a QB who can't throw very well or get into his second or third progressions efficeiently does not seem to have gotten us very far. So how about you tell us who has suffocated under LaPo only to have their obvious underdeveloped talents shine elsewhere? It is possible, but no one obvious springs to mind for me.

That was one of the best offences ever. Who was the O.C. that year?

Oops...misread the original post. My bad. Apologies.

What do you think Fajardo, Evans, Arbuckle, Streveler, MBT and Adams are? Even Harris and Masoli, who are more established, have growing to do and will be better. Given the lack of experience and young age of so many QBs now (remember, all pressed into emergency duty due to injury) I'd say they for the most part have acquitted themselves well. This argument about lousy QBing comes up every so often when the old guard goes down. Brock, Moon, Wilkinson, Holloway all leave and then it's "there are no good QBs other than Clements - Dunigan, Ham and Allen are too raw, Dewalt is a flash in the pan", then they mature into great QBs, some get injured and replaced by rookies, and then McManus is no good, Calvillo is no good, Khari Jones is a third stringer, Kevin Glenn is below average, once Flutie (then Garcia, Dickenson, Burris, Mitchell, etc.) is gone there will be no one in Calgary, other than Ricky Ray there is no one good, then Ray is no good, Lulay is washed up, Pierce is a waste, ad nauseum. I'd say the fact that we had back-ups step up in every single CFL city this year, and right now 3 of those back-ups (Evans, Fajardo, and Adams) are the new unquestioned starters going forward, with a 4th (Arbuckle) being able to likely start on any team needing help, and 2 more (Streveler and MBT) being young enough and with enough upside that they are worth keeping around to see if they can morph into a #1, that the league is in OK shape. Add the remaining old guard of top tier Reilly, Mitchell, Masoli, and - if they can overcome their health issues - a competant middle tier of Nichols and Collaros as starters, and that is a decent load of talent. And who knows if one-time "next big things" Jennings and Franklin can re-discover magic like Calvillo did after starting big in Vegas and then crashing and burning in Hamilton?

Not as big a Star Wars geek as many, but can respect the influence of the series on pop culture. But I would disagree about Attack being better than Sith. Curious how you would rank the entire series (include the spinoffs like Rogue or Solo if you wish). For me: 1) Empire Strikes Back - beyond the "spoiler" that defined the whole series, the whole Hoth sequence and asteroid chase was really cool. 2) Return of the Jedi - Ewoks never bothered me much, the Jabba palace and space barge was the cantina re-done much better (before the CGI re-do messed it up a bit), the bike race through the trees was the trench fight done better with obstacles, and the 3 simultaneous battles at the climax are great. 3) New Hope - actually a pretty thin story, but it created the universe, so high marks there. But just not as visually dazzling as the two above it. *I would place Rogue One here I think, only saw it once in theatres but had low expectations and was pleasantly surprised by the tight story. My son hated it because all the characters were disposable in the end. 4A) Revenge of the Sith - hate to give any credit to the middle trilogy as it cheapens the whole franchise, but this was far superior to the other two installments, so maybe I unfairly grade it higher by comparsion. 4B) Force Awakens - felt like a re-tread of the original film, so I grade it lower for no originality, but nostalgia and cool effects rank it in the middle. On any given day might put it above Sith depending on my contempt for the whole middle trilogy. 6) (and dropping) Phantom Menace - thought it was OK when I first saw it, but it has not aged well with me on repeated viewings. Like the movie Scream said, "the best movie villains, like Hannibal Lecter and Darth Vader, are the ones that don't explain why they are villains". This movie destroyed that, and my God is George Lucas bad at casting child actors. *Would place Solo here because it was so unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. 7) Attack of the Clones - if you can't fake chemistry with Natalie Portman of all people in a love story, then you and your entire movie suck. This is awful. 8) Last Jedi - Maybe because each movie since the original trilogy seems to have tarnished its legacy more and more each time, I put this below Clones. But this movie tried to do too much and could have had 4 different stopping points (again was expecting a re-tread of Empire, which it started out as, then morphed into a re-do of Return/Jedi, then tacked on another hour of, what exactly?) Maybe the final installment will give meaning to the middle story and make it better in overall context.

Bo Levi stood in the pocket all last game. Should we reflexively rip his offensive coordinator for trying to get him hurt too?

I could see voters splitting hairs there too, since Banks got busted for MDA (ecstasy - but still a stimulant) and Harris got nabbed for steroids.

No, he was suspended for breaking the rules, like Harris. But obviously "it wasn't performance enhancing, so we can trust his numbers and not Harris' !" So, Simoni Lawrence got suspended for his illegal hits, which is part of his performance and his style of play. Will he get knocked for his illegal style of play which could enhance his play-making (receivers fear the big hit?) Obviously apples and oranges, but if selective morality is going to be a factor in voting and not performance-based, then consider 2 things: 1) Brandon Banks got busted for violating the league's drug policy in 2016 and still got the team and Eastern nominations for Best Special teams player, and was voted as a divisional all-star, and he is a leading candidate for east MOP this year, so how do voters reconcile that if they ignore Harris on principle? 2) Here are Harris' numbers before the positive test, after the test and before the suspension (appeal period when he knew he'd been caught), and after the suspension: BEFORE TEST: (4 games) rushes 58, yards 378, avg. 6.5, TDs 0, long 52, rush per game 14.5, yds. per game 94.5 receptions 18, yards 101, avg. 5.6, TDs 2, long 20, rec. per game 4.5, yds. per game 25.3 touches 76, yards 479, avg. 6.3, TDs 2, long 52, touch per game 19, yds. per game 119.8 AFTER TEST/PRE-SUSPENSION: (6 games) rushes 83, yards 530, avg. 6.4, TDs 3, long 56, rush per game 13.8, yds. per game 88.3 receptions 28, yards 236, avg. 8.4, TDs 1, long 34, rec. per game 4.7, yds. per game 39.3 touches 111, yards 766, avg. 6.9, TDs 4, long 56, touch per game 18.5, yds. per game 127.7 AFTER SUSPENSION: (5 games) rushes 69, yards 408, avg. 5.9, TDs 1, long 21, rush per game 13.8, yds. per game 81.6 receptions 21, yards 171, avg. 8.1, TDs 1, long 74, rec. per game 4.2, yds. per game 34.2 touches 90, yards 579, avg. 6.4, TDs 2, long 74, touch per game 18, yds. per game 115.8 So has there been a significant enough drop-off to suggest he was getting enhanced play because of the drugs in his system? This of course assumes he isn't still using, which would be quite surprising given he got caught once, is likely being tested more closely now, and given his stance that this was accidental would REALLY be taking a risk of destroying any of what is left of his reputation if he got caught again. I make no determination personally if he should or should not be left off for his conduct, but if I were a voter these are questions I would ask myself and expect to explain if asked by others.

Wonder if that "disqualify Harris for his suspension" attitude would carry over to Vernon Adams Jr. in Montreal?

Actually it's also Roberts' fault for fumbling in the first place and causing Glenn to dive for the loose ball.

Admit that Streveler and not LaPo was the problem? This board would have a meltdown.

Would need to beat Calgary and then they would have to lose to BC the following week.