HardCoreBlue

A perfect case study to look at when debating the merits of building through the draft versus the merits of building through free agency were the tenure's of Tambellini (Oilers) and Feaster (Flames).

When you say veteran can that be interpreted as talented? And when we look at QB prospects with the appropriate skill sets for the CFL coupled with potentially willing/wanting to play in the CFL, is the well dry? Because if Collaros does indeed command a higher than normal salary based on what he's shown and delivered in this league than that tells me the team that takes him thinks this is the case and is desperate.

Maybe, or you'll see him two/three games in retire as an Alouettes and move into their coaching team.

You may be right but based on my observations being around the eskiblows far to much is he'd consider that a strength of his.

If it's Miles, it will be defensive coordinating by committee with O'Shea's background and all. What makes you say that? Just because O'S used to be a linebacker? He's never coached positionally before, let alone coordinated a defense. Despite that, the sense I'm getting from him anyways, is that he is the type to just let his guys do their jobs. He'll have his plate full enough. True but by your logic O'Shea shouldn't be a head coach either just because he's been a special teams coordinator. As well, coaching by committee can work if done appropriately. It's not about the head coach wearing multiple hats (like lapo did with his head coaching duties and the offense), it's about the coaching team actually operating as high performing team where each individual knows when to lead, knows when to follow and knows when the get the he'll out of the way. All coaches need to be receptive to other coaches inputs but not obligated to enact it. O'Shea can provide input and empower his coaches. It can be done if he has that special skill set to do it. That's not my logic at all. I'm not saying that Miles shouldn't be a DC. I'm also not saying that "coaching by committee" doesn't work. What I am saying is that we have a rookie HC that will be busy instilling his own culture and philosophies into this team. He should be working hard at building a coaching staff that can run their departments effectively. O'Shea is not in a position to be worrying about involving himself with the defense, regardless if he would be qualified to do so or not. I can't remember writing that you said Miles shouldn't be a DC. Originally you questioned my logic on O'Shea taking more of a part in our DC and I felt, based on what you wrote, you weren't being consistent then with your thought process when looking at other individuals. The obvious point you make, at least to me, is yes he needs to hire coaches to run their areas competently and effectively. If that wasn't the case, then oh boy we're in trouble. I didn't suggest O'Shea should be worrying about involving himself with the defense, I simply suggested, based on Miles coaching experience, along with my interpretations of what I've seen from him so far, is once the rubber hits the road, he will probably play a more significant role in how we lay out our defensive strategies. But, ultimately, taking the philosophy of empowering his coaches as the main decision makers in their respective departments. At the end of the day, I guess it's the mindset one takes when coaching by committee. If the worry and micro manager factor is enacted, then it is no longer a team approach and ultimately will fail. But if it's more of a, 'hey, here's my input based on my experience, what I've seen, expertise etc, hope it helps' then more chance for success. This actually fits nicely into your point of instilling a certain type of culture knowing it's not his culture, it's about him trying to provide some direction and model what it needs to look like for this team to be successful. This to me is what sets a great head coach apart from a good head coach. A good example, although not football, would be the head coach of the Nashville Predators, Barry Trotz. My educated guess is that his shelf life is not a result of his control over all on-ice hockey decisions and/or his specific x's and o's hockey knowledge, it's signficatly based on his keen ability to lead/inflluence a type of culture individuals connected to that organization subscribe too and resonate with.

If it's Miles, it will be defensive coordinating by committee with O'Shea's background and all. What makes you say that? Just because O'S used to be a linebacker? He's never coached positionally before, let alone coordinated a defense. The True but by your logic O'Shea shouldn't be a head coach either just because he's been a special teams coordinator. As well, coaching by committee can work if done appropriately. It's not about the head coach wearing multiple hats (like lapo did with his head coaching duties and the offense), it's about the coaching team actually operating as high performing team where each individual knows when to lead, knows when to follow and knows when the get the he'll out of the way. All coaches need to be receptive to other coaches inputs but not obligated to enact it. O'Shea can provide input and empower his coaches. It can be done if he has that special skill set to do it. Despite that, the sense I'm getting from him anyways, is that he is the type to just let his guys do their jobs. He'll have his plate full enough. If it's Miles, it will be defensive coordinating by committee with O'Shea's background and all. What makes you say that? Just because O'S used to be a linebacker? He's never coached positionally before, let alone coordinated a defense. Despite that, the sense I'm getting from him anyways, is that he is the type to just let his guys do their jobs. He'll have his plate full enough.

If it's Miles, it will be defensive coordinating by committee with O'Shea's background and all.

Sort of. Although how do we know Stubler chose Calgary over us? Maybe we said no thanks after the interview process. Unless of course I missed a press release that says otherwise.

Not total. Keeping 20% of last years 'concepts'. Let's hope 'concepts' being score some g*d damn touchdowns.

If I was Winnipeg, I wouldn't be trying to trade for competition for Collaros. The big selling point we have over other teams at the moment is that he would be the clear cut starter. Start acquiring pieces to compete with him and all of a sudden, we're no different than Hamilton or Montreal. I would find it odd that if we land Collaros we would annoint him our starting QB prior to training camp. There has to be a little push on him to deliver AND we need depth. I would also hope that if we weren't able to land Collaros, our brain trust doesn't throw up their hands and say 'now what?'

To me and based on history it makes sense that Paul Lapolice may have determined it wasn't a good fit for him in BC regardless of his TSN employment. IF Wally Buono still has direct decision-making powers over on-field gameday strategies/direction, it has the potential to lead to conflict. When Mr. Lapolice was here, he did seem to come across as someone who needed a high level of control (See OC) which ironically may not reasonate completely with Mr. Buono. For LaPo to be consistently successful as a coach at any level (he knows his x's and o's for sure), my observations tell me he needs to work on empowering people around him and relinquishing control as appropriate.

Oh that's who you played for in high school. Makes sense now. Well, I played on a baseball team called the switch hitters, it was awesome. The other teams so enjoyed us.

Well, sometimes the challenge is the incentive and possibly more opportunities to evolve his career.

"The Bombers do have players with a ton of talent, he said, though he noted you can’t see character on tape – or measure the effect of lack of confidence'. From the freep. Well said, let's hope he's a good judge. Good first impression.

Of course, I missed all that because the live feed didn't work & CJOB cut out shortly after getting some quick analysis from Bob Irving & Doug Brown. Guess I'll have to go on the Bomber website later & watch.Not having Creehan back as DC would be a great thing. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Stubler ends up coming here to be the DC, now that O'Shea is the Head coach. Along the same line of thinking, wonder if Jarious Jackson (don't know what his contractual obligations are) would leave BC to come over as QB coach or a role with more responsibilities?

You loved the George Cortez hire, so I'm okay with your opinion. Compare their coaching resumes before making the jump to HC and you would see why. Far as I can see O'shea was hired because ... 1. He was a good player on good teams. 2 . He coached something. You're right. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he is regarded as one of the best on-field leaders in the history of the CFL. I'll jump in on this one. Although I was hoping for Cortez, I don't mind the hire and yes, you're right, great on-field leader in O'shea. However, the 64 dollar question that will be answered in time, does that translate into being a great head coach? I hope so. Look at Wayne Gretzky, great on-ice leader, average Head coach. It's not always a slam dunk. But anything looks good right now considering what we've endured that past few seasons and the direction our expectations took, e.g., wanting to win to getting a high draft pick.

Cortez reportedly made $300k in Hamilton. Burke made $225 last season. Not a huge difference. You more times than not get what you pay for. If the Bombers are relunctant to understand this concept when it comes to key positions at the player or management level, they can't be surprised by negative results that ensue and will have to accept we will continue to be mediocre if we continue to fool ourselves. Giving Khari Jones the keys to this football club because he would come with a cheaper price tag and coupled with errenous rationalizations (such as being a former Bomber) and over-rating of what he brings to the table to justify this decision will more than likely not turn out well. Especially in sport where careers tend to be short, compensation can not be compromised when it comes to attracting quality talent whether one likes it or not.

Short answer, Yes. On a scale of 1 to 10, one being not thrilled to ten being estatic, about a six for me. Overall as a GM. he's an unknown commodity so pretty much a wait and see feeling about him.

Love your optimism... Like JBR said, it would be crazy for Collaros to re-sign in TO and let them control what happens to him. They have to trade his rights or lose him for nothing in FA. And as 17to85 alluded to, who really gives a crap about tampering? The slap on the wrist from the CFL would be worth it, as this is too important for us to screw up. I'm not sold on the fact that if we don't get Collaros that it's all over for us. I'm guessing it's not what you meant but I'm hoping we diversify our efforts to land a bonifide QB and not get tunnel vision on one player.

No, it's not one (hard assed) or the other (players coach). It's a combination of both knowing when to use one over the other at appropriate times.

I like the idea of Associate Coach for Cortez but can't seem him making a lateral move here as OC even if their sick of him.

I finally saw the Big Bang episode where Sheldon used the line you have adopted. Funny stuff.

If I was GM, I'd go with George Cortez based on intitution, gut feel, observation and, ultimately, to test my theory. Hey it's fantasy, I have that luxury of no pressure other than feeling crappy or good between June and November based on this decision. I like the fact that he's tried (and predominatly failed) as a head coach. The recency of this 'experience' (last year) and his learnings will translate into the needed changes he knows he needs to make to be successful. Most importantly the needed changes in how to lead a team, how to manage a team, how to delegate (or not) as appropriate, how to deal with the media, how to deal with differing player personalities, how to have those tough discussions when needed, how to be appropriately rah rah when needed, how to deal with a multitude of fan perspectives, how to deal with assistant coaches, how to deal with depth, how to deal with scouting, how to deal with upper management/boards etc etc. The obvious point is his role is not to draw out the x and o's. Bring in O'Shea, Berry, K. Jones, others for that. As I've said before, I like the mix he brings to the table and the potential of realistic hirings needed to fill-in the necessary gaps. I'd roll the dice with him.

Can I get an Irony Alert on aisle 1? I'm pleased with this news. O'Shea would be one of the few "first timers" I would like to see coach our depleted team, the other was Dave Dickenson. Help me understand (anyone) with clarity why our organization would again give the reins to a 'first timer' considering how it's gone with the last couple of choices? Yes, absoutley, experienced head coaches taking on another head coaching gig have surley shite the bed, but maybe we swing the pendulum back to experience and try it agaiin. No? Maybe the best of both worlds is to hire George Cortez who has a bit of both. I get the sentiment, but for me, hiring a past failure as head coach is no better than hiring someone with no experience. In one situation, you're hoping someone who sucked before will be great now, while in the other situation you're hoping someone with no track record will be great now. Sure, the past experience might help, but when you're talking about a 62 year old man... is he really going to change his approach that much this time around? I doubt it. I get what you're saying but some former head coaches with past failures also have past successess. It's not that cut and dry when looking at whether a former head coach would be a good fit simply based on their most recent last tenure and/or age. Not certain on the validity of your statement about being 62 years old. I think your saying old dogs can't learn new tricks. In the same breath I could flip your argument around and suggest that a more seasoned age might be more inclined to know what to do this time (or at least who to surround themselves with) due to their knowledge gained over the years. And no, I'm not 62 years old yet. :-)