HardCoreBlue

Yea, but his emotions got the better of him, impacting the team, fanbase and media negatively. Simply showing emotions isn't good enough.

I'm with you on this if he's made available by Calgary and we bring in other's to compete. No harm in seeing what he's got. That's what training camps are for.

You do make a good point. I just end up shouting at the TV "why didn't you do that when you were our coach" during the first segment of half time when Randorf comes on with Lapo, and Lapo gushes over the "creative play-calling" of whatever team is winning. Because the pressure isn't there for him and he knows he has no accountability or control tied to this 'creativeness'. It's like how some people are brave behind keyboards but once the keyboard is gone and the light shines on them, they either play neutral, wilt or just simply disappear.

Exactly my predicament. We were over at friends and the game was on, but it was just background noise. I can't remember the last time I've done that. I am stoked about the off season. Plenty to do, lots of decisions, no where but up, right?

If Reilly knows that's true deep down in himself, he would be advised to have a discussion with Matt Dunigan. Whether you like Matt or not, I commend him for talking about this issue and using his own failings, impacts on his family/friends and continued health issues to teach others.

I was being sarcastic with Buck to help make my point. Should have used an appropropriate emoticon. :-)

I have to ask ..why do it? Both Reilly and that org. are taking a serious chance here, IMO. Not to mention the fact that they are in a similar situation to the Bombers as in the season is a right off for all intended purposes. Sit him, make sure he's ready for the 2014 season and build your team around him. Treat the remaining games as a camp to determine who fits well with this QB and the defense to support him. It's sucks if you're paying money to support and watch them but probably better in the long term.

Because we need a QB that can start MOST of the games next season and not one who's going to break after one game. Then you're just going to be bitching again "WHY DON'T WE HAVE A PROPER QB TO BACKUP TATE WHEN HE GETS HURT". Tate is a bandaid....we do NOT need a bandaid at QB. Especially one that tears as easily as he does. Tate should NOT be an option. Totally disagree with this statement. Insert Boltus (or for that matter all our current qb's), inset all the new oline guys we've brought in, insert sandro, insert Bo Smith and you're on to something. But Tate? He's shown enough in this league to warrant more than the label band aid. Saviour no, risk yes, payoff potential, but filler c'mon now. Are you someone who believes Buck Pierce isn't injury prone and shouldn't of been traded? Yea I'm that someone. I post on all the Bomber sites that Buck Pierce isn't injury prone and he got shafted as a starter but no one will listen. Drew Tate and Buck Pierce and where their at in in their respective points in their career is like the tired old cliche, comparing an apple to an orange. I'll ask you a question, are someone who believes that if a QB gets hurt more than once he will predictably become injury prone and be appropriately fiitted with the glass label? With that line of reasoning, I guess we should now right off Reilly in Edmonton, Lulay in BC, Ray in Toronto, Cavillo in Mtl, Mitchell in Calgary. I guess Hufnagel doesn't know what he is doing and should outright release Tate because he's obviously going to follow the same path as Buck Pierce and is just taking up a roster spot. Ironically I'm not even clear on where I stand with Tate talent wise but feel this injury thing is a bit overblown that shouldn't influence us looking at our options at QB with Tate or otherwise. Yes the Buck Pierce experiment did not work out as well as we wanted and yes we don't want to make the same mistake but it can't completely sway us away, be gun shy from other QB's who may have current health issues that they COULD (not for sure) eventually overcome. Think of it this way, it's like trusting someone and that someone burning you bad. Does that mean you should never trust some again? I would suggest no, BUT obviously learn from your experience balanced with not everyone will be that person who burnt your trust. Treat it scenario by scenario each time learning to maximize a positive outcome. Of course this is just my opinion.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Yikes.

Agree.

Or they sucked in practice.

Completly agree. I'm talking off season. That's the frame of mind I'm already in. How depressing.

Because we need a QB that can start MOST of the games next season and not one who's going to break after one game. Then you're just going to be bitching again "WHY DON'T WE HAVE A PROPER QB TO BACKUP TATE WHEN HE GETS HURT". Tate is a bandaid....we do NOT need a bandaid at QB. Especially one that tears as easily as he does. Tate should NOT be an option. Totally disagree with this statement. Insert Boltus (or for that matter all our current qb's), inset all the new oline guys we've brought in, insert sandro, insert Bo Smith and you're on to something. But Tate? He's shown enough in this league to warrant more than the label band aid. Saviour no, risk yes, payoff potential, but filler c'mon now.

Typical Sun headline...hardly an exodus!....not so sure it is about the chaotic atmosphere...more like MONEY! The lack of winning and negative atmosphere plays as large a roll in attracting and retaining players as money does .. what incentive does a top tier free agent have to stay in (or come to) Winnipeg when there's little chance of making the playoffs (and making the extra coin associated with a post season birth)? If two contracts are being considered, both offering similar money, what would entice someone to join an organization that's constantly under the microscope and in a state of continual change? Loyalty, Commitment, We're in this together? Or is that a thing of the past. It's certainly a nice sentiment, and how much an individual values such things will vary from player to player. One thing is for sure though: these guys aren't signing with any team out of the kindness of their hearts. They need to get paid, and making the playoffs is a big part of maximizing your earning potential. Fact is, as long as the Bombers are in a tailspin they'll have a harder time attracting (or retaining) quality players with options. That has really nothing to do with Loyalty and Commitment. Because if it did what you're suggesting by making this statement (and even with your remark it varies) is that well-compensated professional athletes place loyalty and commitment very low on their priority list which is simply not true. Some, and I repeat some professional athletes and the organizations they represent achieve the best of both worlds (compensation and loyalty/commitment). With the Bombers, hard to say how it's going with this. I try to remain optimistic that we have the right people in places (or are looking for them) to build this type of culture. And to add one more thing, for the people who think winning solves all of this are dead wrong. Because losing also shows a lot about a person's character and if their first reaction is to jump ship then I say need a boost . . . Certainly loyalty and commitment and so on factor in to every players decision to choose where to play. So do other things such as 'can I realistically be a starter?', or 'does this team have a terrible coaching staff?' or 'does this team have a hope in hell of making the playoffs?'. We agree that those factors play a role, we disagree on how important they are to the vast majority of players, American or otherise. Money talks, and there is a direct corrolation between a teams success on the field and an individual players earning potential. Did Philip Hunt display a lack of loyalty to the Bombers by signing in the NFL for more money? Would Akeem Foster have chosen to come to Winnipeg if he wasn't traded here first? I bet he's choked up that he's all but lost a playoff pay cheque, and all the positive thinking in the world won't replace those dollar bills. Fair enough, we don't see it the same way. I appreciate your point about money, I'm not that niave nor pollyana, it talks in any profession not just sport. However, it's not as simple as you put it with your correlation. There are players who have actually taken pay cuts and/or have made compromises (which include a variety of things sometimes centred around their families) to stick with their teams so I don't know if using the word VAST is the most appropriate word to use. Let's say Money usually wins at the end of the day. To your point about Akeem, don't know because I'm not in his head but first impressions tell me he's glad he's getting a chance to play that MAY overide him 'choking up' about losing a playoff cheque. Short term pain for long term gain maybe in his circumstance.

Typical Sun headline...hardly an exodus!....not so sure it is about the chaotic atmosphere...more like MONEY! The lack of winning and negative atmosphere plays as large a roll in attracting and retaining players as money does .. what incentive does a top tier free agent have to stay in (or come to) Winnipeg when there's little chance of making the playoffs (and making the extra coin associated with a post season birth)? If two contracts are being considered, both offering similar money, what would entice someone to join an organization that's constantly under the microscope and in a state of continual change? Loyalty, Commitment, We're in this together? Or is that a thing of the past. It's certainly a nice sentiment, and how much an individual values such things will vary from player to player. One thing is for sure though: these guys aren't signing with any team out of the kindness of their hearts. They need to get paid, and making the playoffs is a big part of maximizing your earning potential. Fact is, as long as the Bombers are in a tailspin they'll have a harder time attracting (or retaining) quality players with options. That has really nothing to do with Loyalty and Commitment. Because if it did what you're suggesting by making this statement (and even with your remark it varies) is that well-compensated professional athletes place loyalty and commitment very low on their priority list which is simply not true. Some, and I repeat some professional athletes and the organizations they represent achieve the best of both worlds (compensation and loyalty/commitment). With the Bombers, hard to say how it's going with this. I try to remain optimistic that we have the right people in places (or are looking for them) to build this type of culture. And to add one more thing, for the people who think winning solves all of this are dead wrong. Because losing also shows a lot about a person's character and if their first reaction is to jump ship then I say need a boost . . .

Yes, and what tells me that I'm being honest with myself is that I'm already looking forward to next year and excited about how the team will be structured. This year, I'll be watching to see what current players play like they want to remain a Bomber. If their play and attitude demonsrates otherwise, I hope they're (regardless of who they are) provided with a bus voucher . . .

Typical Sun headline...hardly an exodus!....not so sure it is about the chaotic atmosphere...more like MONEY! The lack of winning and negative atmosphere plays as large a roll in attracting and retaining players as money does .. what incentive does a top tier free agent have to stay in (or come to) Winnipeg when there's little chance of making the playoffs (and making the extra coin associated with a post season birth)? If two contracts are being considered, both offering similar money, what would entice someone to join an organization that's constantly under the microscope and in a state of continual change? Loyalty, Commitment, We're in this together? Or is that a thing of the past. It's certainly a nice sentiment, and how much an individual values such things will vary from player to player. One thing is for sure though: these guys aren't signing with any team out of the kindness of their hearts. They need to get paid, and making the playoffs is a big part of maximizing your earning potential. Fact is, as long as the Bombers are in a tailspin they'll have a harder time attracting (or retaining) quality players with options. That has really nothing to do with Loyalty and Commitment. Because if it did what you're suggesting by making this statement (and even with your remark it varies) is that well-compensated professional athletes place loyalty and commitment very low on their priority list which is simply not true. Some, and I repeat some professional athletes and the organizations they represent achieve the best of both worlds (compensation and loyalty/commitment). With the Bombers, hard to say how it's going with this. I try to remain optimistic that we have the right people in places (or are looking for them) to build this type of culture.

Even the best people get upset sometimes, it happens. And there is they key word. If however that's replaced with always or most times, then it becomes an issue imho.

Typical Sun headline...hardly an exodus!....not so sure it is about the chaotic atmosphere...more like MONEY! The lack of winning and negative atmosphere plays as large a roll in attracting and retaining players as money does .. what incentive does a top tier free agent have to stay in (or come to) Winnipeg when there's little chance of making the playoffs (and making the extra coin associated with a post season birth)? If two contracts are being considered, both offering similar money, what would entice someone to join an organization that's constantly under the microscope and in a state of continual change? Loyalty, Commitment, We're in this together? Or is that a thing of the past.

Just as scary is us winning a game when we had NO first downs in the first half . . .

Huh? He's the only person on the panel not making excuses for Burke and his downright poor decisions. Everything that happened after Edmonton's FG was crazy. Taking a kickoff makes zero sense. Edmonton isn't going to kick a ball that will be returnable, they aren't that stupid. All that is going to do is waste time, and possibly lead to a scramble for the ball with (shaky) Ford back there. Exact same thing I said about Palardy, I'll say about Goltz now. If you don't have any confidence in him to make a throw and play quarterback, cut him and put someone else in there. 23 seconds and 1 timeout= 3 plays and a kick attempt. Crime against humanity to take knees there. If they want a season ticket base above 15,000 next season, Burke can't be back. Ironically, I think Tim Burke would agree with you. Well maybe not the crime against humanity part. I really do believe in watching him he knows he's done, he wants to be done but can't bring himself to resign. Probably a mixture of his pride, management won't do it and a coach resigning during the season generally doesn't happen in the CFL so I'll hang on to the end of the year type mentaility.