TrueBlue4ever

You don't……..and yet there will be 50 or so posts with variations on "Brohm sucks", "fire O'Shea/Bellefeuille/Hall/Walters", "Hurl needs to go", "Marve is our saviour", "you guys are just negatrons", "positrons are deluded", "blow it up and re-build", "we can't blow up again, give it time" (did I miss anything?) in the next 24 hours, all of it in CAPS LOCK YELLING. I'm going to enjoy my Sunday instead. The problems will still be there on Monday, but maybe the emotions will have cooled enough by then.

Maybe everyone should take 24 hours away from posting here and start with the deep analysis on Monday.

Fair enough, and that's great if it works. Always nice to be the genius who thinks outside the box and challenges the status quo - if the results are there. Sadly, the past recent history of the Bombers is that when they get guys in player personnel who march to the beat of their own drummer (Reinbold, Mack) and don't care what anyone else thinks about what is the right way to do things, their contrarian way of doing things has proven disasterous for the franchise.

If that's the case then all the more important to load up the box to stuff the run and force Nicholls to beat you with his arm. If he is Edmonton's best weapon, you have a real chance to beat them. Rain will only hurt his cause.

Bingo. One other possible weakness might be fatigue (if Nicholls plays down to his usual sub-par back-up QB form), or so we hope.

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line. No I'm not self-employed and I think that you seem to have missed what I was talking about. I'm not talking about the day to day stuff that every employee, management or otherwise, has to put up with. I'm talking about the core stuff that one does. If I'm hired to do a job and then I have a boss who wants to spend his time telling me how to do it, he and I would (and this has happened) have a conversation about why I was hired and what my expectations are for my job. If we can't come to a satisfactory understanding, then yes, it's time to move on. Fortunately, I've found that in most cases, if you show your superiors that yes, you do know your stuff and if you make sure that you keep them "in the loop" they tend to step back and let you do your thing. If not, then why in the world would someone stay where they really aren't respected or appreciated. I hear you and understand that viewpoint, so let's take it back to Taman's scenario. You get hired to manage a company. You have a boss (let's call him a CEO or "president") who is in control of the money, answers to shareholders, and wants a successful, profitable enterprise. You are in to be put in charge of the day-to-day stuff. You are given a budget to work with that is smaller and more restrictive than you would like, but the president says I can find another manager if you don't like the set-up, there are plenty of people looking to be managers and only 7 other companies like this one. You have grown up your whole adult life around this business and worked your way up to become a manager - do you turn this chance down on the principle that you have to make certain concessions to this president? You are in charge of hiring the new workers and assembling a "team" that can make your company successful and profitable. However, there are foremen (let's call them "coaches") who were already hired before you came in, and were hand-picked by the "president". You as the manager make sure the operation runs smoothly, the foreman oversees the workers directly. Your concession is that you have to accept the existing foremen and can't overhaul the whole staff yourself right away, but you are in charge of them. Not a problem because you actually work well with the foremen, and they have done a good job so far. Now fast forward a few years and the company has taken a hit, and the shareholders are angry. The president tells you he is pleased with your work, but hears about problems between the foremen and the workers, and recognizes that a culture change needs to happen. Calls you in and says that the foremen need to go because if nothing happens the shareholders pull out and the company collapses. You think the foremen can salvage the job, plus you have always had a good working relationship with them, but you know that the problems exist and status quo will not be acceptable to your higher ups. The president tells you point blank to fire the foremen and hire a new staff of your own choosing, and if you don't like it, we'll fire you instead, and then find a new manager who will fire the foremen. Remember that this isn't some McJob, this is your career and this ouster will follow you for the rest of your life in any future job interview. Do you really say "take a hike" on principle, knowing that every future job you apply for, the first thing your new prospective bosses will note is your defiance of authority? Or do you fire the guy who wasn't your pick anyway in the first place, bite your lip, and get on with your job? (Remember that Taman didn't run around yelling overtly about how his hands were tied, he used diplomacy and code-speak when everyone in the media knew anyway it was Bauer who pulled the trigger). Finally, Taman in the end did exactly what you suggest he should do if unsatisfied, which is walk away. When Kelly came in, Taman knew he could no longer accept his changed and diminished role, and opted out. He was willing to accept the job that was originally offered to him, but when the rules changed around him again and again, he adapted until he no longer could tolerate it, and then he stepped away. Hardly the back-stabbing, save my own hide to secure my survival coward that has been suggested by some. But I respect your point of view and was happy to engage in a thoughtful debate about it. I just think that it isn't so black and white in the real world that you can talk in absolutes like "if I disagree with my boss I tell them to take a hike, and if I lose my job, so be it - unlike Brendan Taman who would rather be a lap dog". Sorry if the "liar" tag came across as harsh, was trying for humour. (I thought Airplane! was always your go-to if you wanted to lighten the mood).

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line.

No way you would ever tell your boss to take a hike if he asked you to do something and you disagreed, knowing it would cost you your job.

LOL!! This is just fantastic.... Hey, it's ok, some people want to watch marionettes dance around, others don't. Personally, I'd love to have a job where I could sit in a chair collect a salary and have someone above me make all my decisions for me. Oh wait, I forgot, I actually have a spine and a brain and I know how to do my job, so maybe not. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighttttttt. Suuure you would.

Rod is on the Riders payroll.Might as well be. Didn't he get a ring along with the rest of the team when they won the Grey Cup back in 2013. I'm not kidding here, that's what I thought I heard.

Bakari Grant

No one is making the argument that Walters is a draft guru. Neither were you.Your argument was that Mack wasn't cut as much slack for an injury-prone developing draft choice. The counter-argument is that Walters doesn't have the repeated history of screwing up like Mack did...yet. If he does, I'm sure the knives will come out on this board as they always do. And if the baseline standard for greatness as a GM is Joe Mack, then the bar to be "the greatest" really isn't set too high, now is it?

The players made t-shirts. Odell Willis gave himself the nickname "The Mayor of Swaggerville", not anyone else.

If I was married to Mack, I would have been justified in leaving him because 17to85 was clearly in bed with him for all those years. And Mack should owe me alimony for all the season ticket money of mine he wasted while he was here. ;-)

Nothing wrong with it if that is what entertains you. Lots wrong with it if it doesn't. For those who dislike it, it smacked of arrogance, with players who were more about themselves than the team, and spent time telling people how great they were because it wasn't evident enough on its own merit. And I get the whole "it ain't bragging if you can back it up" concept, but if you are that good, your play will speak for you, not your proclamations. They were good, but the West-Battle-Jones-Brown era never had to brag because everyone feared them on their reputation of performance alone, and no one needed to be told how good they were, because everyone knew it just by watching them. They didn't have to convince anyone (maybe themselves?) with hot air. Plus, that arrogance comes with a healthy dose of humble pie and comeuppance when you lose (like touting an interception you made when losing 35-0 in Edmonton, right Jovon?), and that comeuppance can attach itself beyond the players to the fanbase. To each their own, I guess. Neither approach is right or wrong objectively, just a personal preference about how you like your professional athletes to act. I'd prefer my team spend time in practice working on fine-tuning football drills rather than choreographing TD and sack dances.

Pencer was crapped on immediately. I'm just pointing out the bit of hypocrisy that exists.You don't see any other differences in their situations?What's different? Both high draft picks that were a reach taken as high as they were and neither one was able to solidify a roster spot, except one had a lot of injury excuses at least.Oh, so that's where he went with it. How about: Goossen - taken #2, ranked #4 in o-linemen (#2 for those GMs thought wouldn't bolt to the NFL) and #9 overall, was 3 year conference all-star and captain of his college team heading into draft, no injury history from college or attitude issues to worry about that we know of, played in 15 games and started 3 in his first year, missed 3 games to injury last year before this year's injury woes at the start of camp in just his 2nd season. Pencer - Taken #3, ranked #6 among o-lineman and not even ranked overall on some draft projections, had serious injury concerns from his college days (both shoulders messed up and caused him to miss significant playing time in university football), walked away from one football program midstream for "personal" reasons, got hurt in practice pretty much right away, one start and 6 or so games on roster before being cut, picked up by Edmonton in may and cut by June this year having seen no action in his 4th season. And since your gripe is more about Mack not getting cut the same slack, Pencer wasn't his one-off in draft errors. His draft history of off-the-board Etienne, out-of-position Aprile, and never-going-to-see-the-CFL-anyway Mulumba gave him a lot less leeway to make a mistake when he got outplayed for Westerman and then begged people to believe that Pencer was his plan all along in trading up so he wouldn't have to admit he got schooled. If you want to (still repeatedly) defend Joe Mack, there are better ways to do it than by touting his draft record. Actually, there may not be a better way to defend Mack job-performance-wise, but I doubt there are many worse ways to do it.

Pencer was crapped on immediately. I'm just pointing out the bit of hypocrisy that exists.You don't see any other differences in their situations? Shh! 17 is trying (again) to defend Joe Mack and his draft strategy. Want to see where he goes with this argument.

That I'll agree with completely. And he admitted that in his first year he was too wrapped up in trying to manage all of the coaches and their schemes on the sidelines during games and not reacting to the flow of the game itself, hence the time count and other situational errors. He acknowledged in assessing his work after year one that he needed to trust his assistants more and be "in the game" as a head coach, but he was still learning this new role, as he had been a career assistant before Winnipeg. I think he took great strides after that first year, and is probably better suited to the role required of a head coach now after some time away to reflect on it from afar. Don't think he is Trestman or Buono-esque by any stretch, but he can be decently competent if given another chance.

Who would you put behind us? Saskatchewan for sure, and Ottawa is for this ranking and feels about right. Montreal maybe since we beat them, but they've beaten Calgary and Hamilton, the consensus 2 best teams in the league on paper. We are behind Toronto, Edmonton and BC in the standings. Calgary is Calgary and just beat us, and Hamilton has a losing record, but should have beaten Calgary and thoroughly waxed us at home. Who do we bump out of the top 6?

It's his high profile job on TSN that makes people think he's a good HC, when he really isn't. And it was his clueless GM and lack of a back-up QB that makes people think he's an awful HC, when he really isn't. Good players make good coaches.

Wittman was one of the all-time greats, although possibly underappreciated. He was never the "marquee" guy in any sport (Cole and Irvin would get the national hockey stuff, he'd get the regionals only, and he'd be bumped by Cahill or Armitage in the CFL often) but there was NO ONE would was as versatile and so rock solid in everything he did. Edmonds has shown clearly that being good in one genre does not make you good in a different sport, and Wittman could entertain equally in a 2 OT hockey game, 3 hour football game, a 10 second track and field sprint or the hour of filler leading up to it (him and McGowan were absolute brilliance), or the leisurely pace of curling. Name me another broadcaster today that can diversify as effortlessly as that (Cuthbert is the only one who comes to mind as a full-time multi-sport broadcaster). And just wondering if Walby and Dunigan were not ex-Bombers, would they be as highly regarded? Matt is getting better, but he was pretty rough at the start (his "commentary" was usually just hooting and hollering after a play with no real insight into the play itself). And Walby was flat out horrendous in my view, not very bright either - and it showed. And Doug Brown needs to stop breaking out the mangled Thesaurus every time he opens his mouth to do colour. We get it Doug, you're smarter than all of us, just ask you.

Not it love with LaPo, but always thought he took a lot more heat than deserved for the Bombers' failures. He inherited an absolute mess from Mike Kelly, who ran both Doug Berry and Brendan Taman out of town and then dismantled the team and its reputation with his antics. Has a tough first year with a record number of close losses, and has the wherewithal to recognize his biggest failing as a coach, which is self-admitted micromanagement. Improves in that area next year, and really thanks to the fact that Buck Pierce actually stayed healthy gets to the Grey Cup. Then is forced to start 4 in a row on the road and loses his QB again, and is starting to claw back at 2-6 when he gets blind-sided by Mack. Everyone who blamed LaPo rejoices for about a week until the next game, when 52-0 in Saskatchewan highlights that the problem wasn't the coach, it was his boss and how the team was (so very poorly) built. But too many on the boards had invested their credibility in praising mighty Joe in the wake of Mike Kelly's poor showing, so they bought into the "LaPo as incompetent" theory and began repeating it ad nauseum to deflect from their misguided assessment of Joe Mack's uselessness.

Has a 9-9 team ever missed the playoffs? If we go 9-9 I expect we'd make the playoffs, but no playoffs = no O'Shea to me. Usually not, but given BC only made the crossover by one game last year at 9-9, it's not a give me by any stretch. 9 wins will always get you into the playoffs in the CFL. Hell most times 8 is enough, last year being a bit of an oddball in that it wasn't enough. Just the simple numbers. Some teams always have to lose games and some teams will always win more than half of their games. Only way I don't see a .500 record making the playoffs in the CFL is if parity is such that the top teams only pick up like 10 wins and everyone is sitting there with .500 records. With the crossover rules, 9 wins has always been enough, but before that was in place 11 teams missed the playoffs with .500 or better records. My point was simply that the Bombers were on track to hit 9-9 and were out of a playoff spot (yes, it's very early) so is missing the playoffs really the automatic "fire O'Shea" choice, regardless of how the team does? I wouldn't be so black and white about it. Remember what happened when we knee-jerk fired Doug Berry in an off-year after a Grey Cup run, or when we repeated the mistake with LaPolice in the same scenario. Coaches all have a shelf life, but 2 years isn't it IMO, especially after the brutality of the Joe Mack regime. This team was scorched earth and needs to be completely re-built; like it or not we need some more patience, having gone from 3-15 to 7-11 and now a .500 record.

In the OP it said Picard was sick today.Yes I know. Your point? It's not surprising that with Picard sick they would need another guy snapping the ball and that Neufeld would be that guy. What's with your snarky comments lately Jacquie? I was just stating a fact, that Neufeld was playing centre in practice. It's a notable development, even if Picard was sick. yep, Jacquie is the one being "snarky" I, for one, think it's notable considering how Goosen is waiting in the wings .. The clock is ticking for Goossen. He appears to be bypassed for a starting role, and I am beginning to wonder what is missing from his game. I don't know...he's still young, and this week we are going up against a very good Defence. Might just be an experience thing. I know...you can't get experience unless you get experience....but this might not be the dline to do it against.Can't help but wonder if it had been Joe Mack that drafted Goosen if people would be so forgiving of his utter lack of progress. Impossible hypothetical to ponder. Mack would never have drafted an o-lineman in a spot where we need to draft an o-linemen. Mack would have drafted a 5'9", 170 lb. DB ranked #23 in the #3 spot and then stated "We're going to convert him to slotback, because he's an athlete, and you can never have too much athleticism on your team. We are confident we can teach him to be the extra blocker in the heavy package, and fight the traffic and make those possession catches over the middle, so no, we don't worry about playing him in a position he's never played before, because he's an athlete."

Right now the Bombers are on pace for 9-9 this year….and missing the playoffs. You'd axe O'Shea in that scenario?