Joe Mack's Legacy

[blitzmore]

The worst part is Bombers timing...just like when they fired LaPolice at least one game too early. Joe was in the US scouting NFL camps...what a waste!

[bluto]

21-39

 

spin it whatever way... it still stinks.

[Fred C Dobbs]

I was a Mack fan until last month. Going into this season I figured that unless we make the playoffs and look like we're moving forward, Mack's a gonner. Maybe things will get better but I'm just not very impressed with the team this year.

 

One thing I will miss, though, is Mack's openness with the fans. He was always a guy you could talk to and often learn some interesting stuff from. I remember the 2010 fan forum where Mack was introduced as the new Bombers GM. At the time our two main QB's were Bishop and LeFors and Arch/aka Bomber Diehard cornered Mack and asked him if there were any young quarterbacks in the pipeline. Mack told him straight up: "Yeah there's two guys I'm after, Alex Brink and Joey Elliott."

 

Again, at this years fan forum, Arch and I had a chance to talk to Joe. This was just before the draft and there was a player who was getting a lot of hype but Mack told us why he was a low priority for the Bombers.  Then Arch asked him (something like) "Is there anyone out there we should Google?" Mack said "Don't tell anybody but there's a really fast Defensive Tackle, Zack Anderson, who I'm hoping will come up here."

 

Mack didn't have to tell us this stuff but he did. OTOH, when you have a 21-39 record over 3 plus years, there's no way you're going to keep your job.

[road griller]

Took a Championship team and drove into the cellar in one short off season and left it there. 

 

Brought us Goltz though.  So A- imo.

[MOBomberFan]

Took a Championship team and drove into the cellar in one short off season and left it there. 

 

Brought us Goltz though.  So A- imo.

LMFAO

 

Gold RG, gold

[LeBird]

Like everything else it's always what have you done for me lately?

 

So over time his legacy will be his win/loss record because his lack of action on the QB situation.

 

He had four years to put together a team and at 1-5 time did not appear to be the issue.

[Jpan85]

One stat that I found is. In the four previous years before Mack our Canadian receivers had 2 TD's in the 3 1/2 years with Mack its 7. Have to go back to Kamau Peterson to have a Canadian receiver catch more than 2 in a year back in 2004.

[iso_55]

One stat I found  was that before Joe Mack we had a losing record. With Joe Mack we had a losing record.

[wpgallday1960]

One stat I found was that before Joe Mack we had a losing record. With Joe Mack we had a losing record.

Fine but changing regimes every 3-4 years hasn't got us any closer to the GC either. I understand his record is the bottom line but I would have at least to the end of the season. If we didn't make the POs then can him. Canning him now doesn't do us any good in 2013, IMO.

[iso_55]

We have to be ready for the expansion draft & maybe the lead time will mean someone else is in place. I think that was an impoertant consideration. The team is sinking. Mack's the architect of the fiasco. He had to go. Think they'd have 32,000 at the games at IGF in October if they kept llosing with Mack here??? Not a chance. The one thing I'll say about the Bombers is this. They always get it right even if they're 8 months behind every other team.

[Atomic]

Joe Mack's legacy, quite simply, is a 21-39 regular season record, 1-1 playoff record, an East Division championship and a Grey Cup appearance.

 

There have been better GMs, and there have also been a lot worse.

[Noeller]

I prefer to think of Joe Mack's legacy as one of the best scouts we've ever had.

[blitzmore]

Joe Mack's legacy, quite simply, is a 21-39 regular season record, 1-1 playoff record, an East Division championship and a Grey Cup appearance.

 

There have been better GMs, and there have also been a lot worse.

They should have waited until he finished scouting the NFL camps, that is what he was good at!

[DR. CFL]

He wasn't hired as a scout....that was his problem....that's all he did too

[Armchair GM]

I prefer to think of Joe Mack's legacy as one of the best scouts we've ever had.

 

Joe Mack did 1/2 of the job extremely well (the 1/2 you're talking about).  He just did the other 1/2 very poorly. 

 

Mack was something the Bombers have seen very little of over the past several years: steadfast in his plan.  He stuck to his plan at all costs.  He was honestly a rock.  He valued youth over experience, new blood over CFL retreads, and continuity at OL over a quick hook.  Scouts should do all of these things.

 

The problem is that his role was GM, and not just talent scout.  How such an accomplished scout could not improve upon Boatman though, is beyond me. 

[iso_55]

Joe Mack did 1/2 of the job extremely well (the 1/2 you're talking about).  He just did the other 1/2 very poorly. 

 

Mack was something the Bombers have seen very little of over the past several years: steadfast in his plan.  He stuck to his plan at all costs.  He was honestly a rock.  He valued youth over experience, new blood over CFL retreads, and continuity at OL over a quick hook.  Scouts should do all of these things.

 

The problem is that his role was GM, and not just talent scout.  How such an accomplished scout could not improve upon Boatman though, is beyond me. 

His plan sure worked...

[Jacquie]

His plan sure worked...

Doesn't mean it was a bad plan though. Sometimes good plans fail.

[17to85]

It was something the team desperately needed. a decade + of trying to make those couple moves to win now, they needed someone to take a slow and steady approach. It cost a lot of good will for Mack and he didn't get the right coaches for that plan and in the end didn't work but it was something that the team needed to do. 

[Guest]

Doesn't mean it was a bad plan though. Sometimes good plans fail.

IMO Mack's plan became a bad one, early on in the Mack Era I thought it was brilliant to bring in young guys to develop into a strong core. Some decent picks were made in the draft and it looked like Mack was going to build a winner. IMO the problem was Mack's plan was the same every year, keep getting younger and greatly undervalue CFL experience. The fact that we were the youngest team in the league every year Mack was GM says a lot.

 

I suppose one could say Mack's arrogance in his recruiting abilities lead us down this path, at the same time though there are so many issues with this team (not just QB), Mack was a little too hands on with the team and coaching staff for my liking, the Oline never got fixed, our D had one sokid season, our receiving core still doesn't match up with the rest of the league (better than Hamilton and Edmonton's maybe), and so on and so forth.

[iso_55]

Doesn't mean it was a bad plan though. Sometimes good plans fail.

 

Doesn't mean it was a bad plan though. Sometimes good plans fail.

C'mon, WBB. Even you don't believe that deep down. You're a lot smarter than that statement. Who cares if it was a good or bad plan. It didn't work. 21-39.

[Jacquie]

C'mon, WBB. Even you don't believe that deep down. You're a lot smarter than that statement. Who cares if it was a good or bad plan. It didn't work. 21-39.

 

The overall plan failed and that sucks. But there were parts of the plan like acquiring draft picks instead of trading them away and trying to improve our NI talent that were not a failure. Building from within is a good plan in theory rather than going the Taman route and overpaying aging vets. Yeah our overall record under Mack was crap and I'm not broken up that he was fired but I'm also not going to re-write history to say everything he did was bad.

[iso_55]

Plan did not work that's all I know.

[wpgallday1960]

Plan did not work that's all I know.

When kooking at Macks overall w/l record, yes. Macks drafting was more successful than other gms (more of his picks on the roster). He may be considered a failure but there sre positives to build on.

[iso_55]

When kooking at Macks overall w/l record, yes. Macks drafting was more successful than other gms (more of his picks on the roster). He may be considered a failure but there sre positives to build on.

Agreed.

[DR. CFL]

You can't really evaluate a GMs performance simply on one aspect of the position. Hence the term General Manager. He was not a General and anything but a Manger except in areas he should have left to the coaching staff. Perhaps that is why he hired inexperienced HCs he could then control and micro manage.