Which Coaches Do You Want Back?

[blitzmore]

 

 

 

 

I'm at the point now where I actually want them to make a big production about keeping Etch, and talk about how great he was this year, just so I can sit back and laugh at people on here and watch all the screaming and ants running from their hill being kicked...

I want to win Noeller. We won't ever with him as DC. I think that's more important than keeping him around for anyone's amusement. 

 

and yet we could have easily had a winning season with him as DC if not for bad turnovers on offense, some break downs on special teams... That's why people keep arguing with you about this, the defense was actually pretty solid for the most part this season. The offense doesn't go MIA late in the year and a winning season and playoffs quite likely happen. 

 

So second last in sacks and last in run stopping constitutes a solid defence for the most part of the season? That's laughable actually. It also fails to talk about the effect on the offence, especially in fourth quarters many times so the offence could not get back on the field.

 

 

 

In general football theory, sure, that's a problem.  In real-life Bomber games?

 

The first Rider game where many fans were losing their minds over Messam running for 10 yards on every carry.  Total points generated by Saskatchewan's offence that game?  6.

 

And us not being able to mount a comeback because we didn't have the ball?  The defence got the offence the ball twice inside the 3 minute warning that game.  And the offence gave us 2 turnovers.

 

It's a flawed defence, no doubt.  By design it gives up the run to take away the pass.  I'm not in love with it.  But the whipping it takes from people I'd consider knowledgeable football fans on here (some obvious exceptions), well it makes me wonder whether breaking down all 18 games after the fact is an exercise I should make time for.  Because the games I watched, more often than not the defence was giving us a chance to win, not costing us the game.

 

Well the one game example is not enough for me. You admit it is flawed, but you still want him back when we could likely find someone better? I guess the fact he has not been employed in the CFL for quite some time should tell us something.

[Mike]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm at the point now where I actually want them to make a big production about keeping Etch, and talk about how great he was this year, just so I can sit back and laugh at people on here and watch all the screaming and ants running from their hill being kicked...

I want to win Noeller. We won't ever with him as DC. I think that's more important than keeping him around for anyone's amusement. 

 

and yet we could have easily had a winning season with him as DC if not for bad turnovers on offense, some break downs on special teams... That's why people keep arguing with you about this, the defense was actually pretty solid for the most part this season. The offense doesn't go MIA late in the year and a winning season and playoffs quite likely happen. 

 

So second last in sacks and last in run stopping constitutes a solid defence for the most part of the season? That's laughable actually. It also fails to talk about the effect on the offence, especially in fourth quarters many times so the offence could not get back on the field.

 

 

 

In general football theory, sure, that's a problem.  In real-life Bomber games?

 

The first Rider game where many fans were losing their minds over Messam running for 10 yards on every carry.  Total points generated by Saskatchewan's offence that game?  6.

 

And us not being able to mount a comeback because we didn't have the ball?  The defence got the offence the ball twice inside the 3 minute warning that game.  And the offence gave us 2 turnovers.

 

It's a flawed defence, no doubt.  By design it gives up the run to take away the pass.  I'm not in love with it.  But the whipping it takes from people I'd consider knowledgeable football fans on here (some obvious exceptions), well it makes me wonder whether breaking down all 18 games after the fact is an exercise I should make time for.  Because the games I watched, more often than not the defence was giving us a chance to win, not costing us the game.

 

Well the one game example is not enough for me. You admit it is flawed, but you still want him back when we could likely find someone better? I guess the fact he has not been employed in the CFL for quite some time should tell us something.

 

 

Who would you recommend that would be a clear improvement?

[blitzmore]

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

[Mike]

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

That's a cop out answer though. It's not like there are hidden candidates all over the place, there are a limited number of viable options.

[blitzmore]

 

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

That's a cop out answer though. It's not like there are hidden candidates all over the place, there are a limited number of viable options.

 

It's only a cop out answer because you think it is. So you think they should not do their due diligence, and should keep Marcel regardless? Sure lets maintain the status quo.

[NotoriousBIG]

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

This organization is not exactly the poster child for exhaustive searches. More like convenience hires, friends of friends, and who's available. 

 

The only thing that gives me faith is that I know Miller likes winning more than anything else, even friends. And there is simply no way he watched last year and thought "well, those coaches are doing a bang up job. Lets bring em back, no questions asked."

[mbrg]

Well the one game example is not enough for me.

 

That's fine, that's why I was musing about breaking down all 18 games.  16 I guess, there's not much point in looking at the Edmonton and Ottawa games, the entire team crapped the bed in those.  But ya, look at each game with the simple idea of what happened and why did ________ get those points on the board?  Cause that's all that matters when it comes to wins and losses - the score.  Not the rushing statistics.  Those matter at contract time.

 

You admit it is flawed

 

What defence isn't?

 

but you still want him back when we could likely find someone better?

 

I'm 50-50 on wanting him back, I'm just trying to be objective rather than emotional in determining his role in our team's wins and losses this year.  Some running back put up 120 yards on us that led to 2 field goals in a 60 minute football game.  Maybe that wounds the pride but it doesn't amount to the reason a game was won or lost.

 

The main reason I wouldn't want him back is I don't think we can win a championship with this defence.  A winning record and a playoff berth?  No problem.

 

I guess the fact he has not been employed in the CFL for quite some time should tell us something.

 

And Tim Burke found employment 3 minutes after a DC job opened.  The comings and goings of coaches in the CFL has never had a logical pattern to it.

 

Is Etchevery the best DC in the league?  No, he's unique but not the best.  Who is?  Whatever name people use to answer that question, it's pretty likely that many of the players on that team are better than the ones on ours.  So does Etch's defence look better with better players?  Of course it does.  And we all knew going into this season that our roster didn't stack up to most others in the league.

 

Over in the Trestman thread, several people are nodding their heads about the obvious statement that better players make coaches look better.  For some reason no one wants to admit that this would be true of our coaches.  Our coaches are just garbage somehow.

 

Is someone out there better than him?  And available?  None immediately come to mind.  Odds are we're rolling the dice on a total freshman DC, or bring back Kavis Reed or Greg Marshall.

[mbrg]

 

 

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

That's a cop out answer though. It's not like there are hidden candidates all over the place, there are a limited number of viable options.

 

It's only a cop out answer because you think it is. So you think they should not do their due diligence, and should keep Marcel regardless? Sure lets maintain the status quo.

 

 

I must have missed the part where this switched from defence to offence.  Will scroll up.

[blitzmore]

So just because no one immediately comes to your mind, doesn't mean no one is out there. All I said is they should do an exhaustive search, which is only good business. If you are 50 50 good for you, but not for me, I didn't think it was a bad hire initially and was prepared to give him a chance. Now that I've seen how he runs his defence...and unless he is wiling to change...I'm done.

[blitzmore]

 

 

 

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

That's a cop out answer though. It's not like there are hidden candidates all over the place, there are a limited number of viable options.

 

It's only a cop out answer because you think it is. So you think they should not do their due diligence, and should keep Marcel regardless? Sure lets maintain the status quo.

 

 

I must have missed the part where this switched from defence to offence.  Will scroll up.

 

 

 

 

 

I would recommend they do an exhaustive search, just like any business who wants to get the best employee! They have plenty of time.

 

That's a cop out answer though. It's not like there are hidden candidates all over the place, there are a limited number of viable options.

 

It's only a cop out answer because you think it is. So you think they should not do their due diligence, and should keep Marcel regardless? Sure lets maintain the status quo.

 

 

I must have missed the part where this switched from defence to offence.  Will scroll up.

 

and yes...I did mean Etch...mea culpa...mea culpa...mea culpa

[Goalie]

Here are 3 names that come to mind

 

1. Orlando Steinhauer - surely his contract is up after this season, Him and O'shea are good friends, name his assistant coach/Defensive Coordinator but i'm not convinced he'd want to leave Hamilton

 

2. Baron Miles - SASK, was rumored to be a candidate last year but apparently didn't want to be a DC, was content with stay in SASK.. perhaps he is willing to move on

 

3. Dennis McPhee - DL Hamilton. Has been with the ticats for  12 seasons tho, so he has quite a bit of roots there, but what you are getting with him is the great unknown. 

 

Another name is a name that was rumored to be on the staff this year.. Cooper Harris, again the great unknown. Surely, there is someone from Calgary who could be a DC too but again, the great unknown.

 

These are probably the only realistic candidates out there. And a few of them, mainly all of them,the great unknown and  how realistic are they? 

[NotoriousBIG]

Here are 3 names that come to mind

 

1. Orlando Steinhauer - surely his contract is up after this season, Him and O'shea are good friends, name his assistant coach/Defensive Coordinator but i'm not convinced he'd want to leave Hamilton

 

2. Baron Miles - SASK, was rumored to be a candidate last year but apparently didn't want to be a DC, was content with stay in SASK.. perhaps he is willing to move on

 

3. Dennis McPhee - DL Hamilton. Has been with the ticats for  12 seasons tho, so he has quite a bit of roots there, but what you are getting with him is the great unknown. 

 

Another name is a name that was rumored to be on the staff this year.. Cooper Harris, again the great unknown. Surely, there is someone from Calgary who could be a DC too but again, the great unknown.

 

These are probably the only realistic candidates out there. And a few of them, mainly all of them,the great unknown and  how realistic are they? 

 

I could see Steinhauer happening. 

[Blueandgold]

 

 

So much hate for Etch.

So Mike, tell me... If he is fired who will hire him as a DC? Please fill me in. Be interested in your take.

 

 

... what's your point?

 

That he's the worst Defensive Coordinator in the league and we can clearly do better.

[Tracker]

 

 

 

So much hate for Etch.

So Mike, tell me... If he is fired who will hire him as a DC? Please fill me in. Be interested in your take.

 

 

... what's your point?

 

That he's the worst Defensive Coordinator in the league and we can clearly do better.

 

Agreed. Etch's performance this season makes me wish we'd hired Marshall instead.

[Brandon]

I'm not a fan of Marshall either....  I'd rather someone run a more conventional defense and focus on finding the best talent that we can instead of trying to either pigeon hole talented guys into weird roles or trying to fill weird roles with guys with limited talents....

[17to85]

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

[gbill2004]

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

We win 2 of 3 vs the Riders with another competent DC. A few other games that I can't remember now where we couldn't close the win because we couldn't stop the run.

[Mr Dee]

 

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

We win 2 of 3 vs the Riders with another competent DC. A few other games that I can't remember now where we couldn't close the win because we couldn't stop the run.

 

 

No, that's not right.

We could not turn off the turnover machine in one game, and the offence, when given the chance in another game, twice, could not get it done.

 

The defence was not the problem in that series.

[SPuDS]

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

We win 2 of 3 vs the Riders with another competent DC. A few other games that I can't remember now where we couldn't close the win because we couldn't stop the run.

No, that's not right.

We could not turn off the turnover machine in one game, and the offence, when given the chance, twice, could not get it done.

The defence was not the problem in that series.

Yup. there was a lot going wrong in that series... Defense wasn't the worst of em by far..

[gbill2004]

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

We win 2 of 3 vs the Riders with another competent DC. A few other games that I can't remember now where we couldn't close the win because we couldn't stop the run.

No, that's not right.

We could not turn off the turnover machine in one game, and the offence, when given the chance, twice, could not get it done.

The defence was not the problem in that series.

Yup. there was a lot going wrong in that series... Defense wasn't the worst of em by far..

Agreed lots going on, but bottom line is if D makes a stop in last ~2 minutes we win two of those Rider games.

[Mr Dee]

Agreed lots going on, but bottom line is if D makes a stop in last ~2 minutes we win two of those Rider games.

 

 

Saskatchewan at Winnipeg, Week 11, 4th quarter, 2:24 left, 3 straight running plays and the defence holds. 1:34 remaining, Bombers ball on the Rider 45.

Next play Willy throws an int at the 5 yd line. Grossly under thrown.

With penalties the Riders get the ball at the 43 yd line. 1:26 left in the game. 2 runs, stopped, have to punt.

Bombers ball at their 34, :49 seconds left. and the offence fails.

 

1st game Week 7 Bomber defence responsible for 8 points.

 

Bomber offence with 2:10 left in the game, ball on the Rider 51 yd line.

Willy throws a pick at the Rider 10 to the Bombers 51…in Willy's defence, there was no protection.

1:52 left. Bomber did stop the Riders for a single, but too late.

Bombers ball at the 35, :30 seconds left.

 

That turnover, along with 5 others was the reason for this loss, don't you think?

 

Turnovers and putrid offensive play and protection were more the reason for these two losses.

[pigseye]

So the GM and coach don't know what they are talking about when they said the run differential decided games....okay.

[SPuDS]

So the GM and coach don't know what they are talking about when they said the run differential decided games....okay.

Don't be obtuse.. Games doesn't mean ALL games.. Smh.

[blitzmore]

I just hope that all the Etch defenders are happy to live with the defensive schemes we had this year, because by defending the defensive schemes, you might as well say you want him back. If during the 2015 season you are not happy with the defence, providing Etch is still here, you are going to have to bite your tongues, while the rest of us get to complain vehemently.  Perhaps all those who want Etch back, should commit themselves now. 

[Mike]

I'm going to play silly bugger here because everyone wants to always bring up this "we would have won X amount more games with a conventional defense" argument.

 

How many games in our big start do we lose if Etch's defense isn't locking things down and creating havoc out there prior to teams getting more film on our D?

 

A more conventional D probably wins a few games for us this year, but let's be honest - it probably loses us a few too. Our wacky defense confused the hell out of Lefevour, shut down Glenn and forced a bunch of turnovers and scored 14 points in Montreal. Does a conventional D automatically do the same?