Bellefeuille: Burke decides QB on Saturday

[Mike]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edmonton did not have a1st rounder to trade.

BC got an offer from Edmonton for an asset they were going to lose.

BC simply tried to get more for Reilly through Wpg. (swap picks plus another pick)

BC had nothing to lose.

 

Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal.

 

I think it's pretty clear cut why Reilly would take the deal and run... he was only ever going to have an opportunity to start here or in EDM.  

 

That's exactly the point...Reilly wasn't going anywhere but Edmonton. He had made up his mind.

 

Way to cherry pick my posts to make your point.  If Reilly got to free agency, he was going to the highest bidder with the best starting opportunity.  Wally Buono is not in the business of making sweetheart deals... he could give a f*** less where Reilly wanted to go.  Wally's only interested in getting a return for something that 2 days later would bring him nothing... and if WPG and EDM were equal, he was dealing the negotiating rights to WPG, because he'd be dealing Reilly out of his division.  He just got the best deal from EDM. There's nothing more to it than that.  Supply and command, Ricky.

 

If Reilly got to Free Agency, I would agree with your point.  But he didn't, and Buono made the best deal for Buono... you can guarantee that Reilly's preference played exactly 0% into where Buono would have dealt him. 

 

 

I don't agree.

[kelownabomberfan]

Facts it is then:

 

Job on the line unless he fixes the QB situation

 

Offseason:

 

Wouldn't pull the trigger on the Glenn deal

Reilly deal just a 'myth'

Stands pat with his horses

 

After 1 - 4 start

 

Realizes he's made mistake

 

Tries to save his job by dealing for Collaros, which falls through because of injury to Ray

 

In the end, too late for him.

 

He gambled and lost, facts speak for themselves.

 

He didn't "stand pat with his horses".  Mack cut Elliott and Brink and brought in two new guys.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Hindsight, my Aunt Fanny.  I said it at the time and I stick with it now.  We should have gone after Reilly.  If we couldn't get him, we should have settled for Glenn.  We shouldn't have kept Buck.  We should have kept Elliott. 

 

 

 

BTW: It was never a guarantee.  It was a calculated risk.  No one said it was a no-brainer.  

 

 

Total 20-20 Hindsight.  If Reilly was shitting the bed right now you wouldn't even be talking about this.  Nobody would be.  In fact, up until a few weeks ago Reilly was shitting the bed.  And I still don't see him getting through this season alive.  There is no way he can keep getting smoked like that game in and game out and surviving.

 

Also - if the Bombers had tried for Reilly and failed, by giving up a first round draft pick and cutting QB's, you'd be the first one hollering about how stupid they were.  Yeah it was a calculated risk, and a risk that would have resulted in failure.  Reilly was going to Edmonton.

[iso_55]

 

 

Hindsight, my Aunt Fanny.  I said it at the time and I stick with it now.  We should have gone after Reilly.  If we couldn't get him, we should have settled for Glenn.  We shouldn't have kept Buck.  We should have kept Elliott. 

 

 

 

BTW: It was never a guarantee.  It was a calculated risk.  No one said it was a no-brainer.  

 

 

Total 20-20 Hindsight.  If Reilly was shitting the bed right now you wouldn't even be talking about this.  Nobody would be.  In fact, up until a few weeks ago Reilly was shitting the bed.  And I still don't see him getting through this season alive.  There is no way he can keep getting smoked like that game in and game out and surviving.

 

Also - if the Bombers had tried for Reilly and failed, by giving up a first round draft pick and cutting QB's, you'd be the first one hollering about how stupid they were.  Yeah it was a calculated risk, and a risk that would have resulted in failure.  Reilly was going to Edmonton.

 

See, here's the thing... You're saying, "What if Reilly **** the bed?" What if? Our qbs have been shitting the bed for 5 years now anyway so what did we have to lose?? Mack was scared to take a risk. Afraid of losing his job if trading for Reilly didn't work out. So how did that work out for everyone on the Blue Bombers??? stockpile these draft picks like Pencer who can't play because he's like Pierce... a chronic walking injury. Until this year Etienne who's really only had one stand out game this season & in his entire career or picks that go to the NFL. Just once, taking a risk would have been the thing to do to try & get a quality qb. Not having a decent qb cost Mack his job & has set this team back at least 4 years. We're no better off now than we were in 2009 when Bishop played. Mack was an abysmal failure finding a qb.

[Mr Dee]

[iso_55]

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

[Logan007]

I don't think it's that ISO.  I'm not a Joe Mack supporter but I think he made the right move.  Reilly wanted Edmonton and Mack stated the facts.  Even if we got him, he'd have big leverage and could leave anyway.  It would have been stupid for him to even try to go after him.  Now Glenn on the other hand...that's another story.

 

In any case Blitzmore is right...we're just beating a dead horse here.  We don't have Reilly or Glenn, so there's no point arguing over why they aren't here.  The question is, what can we do now.

[Mr Dee]

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

 

You're not even close Iso.

 

Nobody is defending Mack like you're implying.

Just basic facts and information.

 

Many on here have provided you with the simple facts and explanations.

And it's as if you don't read them or if you do, the recognition can't filter through your blind passion/hatred.

 

So yes, can't even shake my head.

[17to85]

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

 

Kool aid is way better than Haterade.

[Onyenegecha]

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

 

Mack is responsible for the product on the field. We are 1-6 due very largely to Mack's decisions. That doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong for not giving up potential NI assets for the opportunity to just talk to a guy who was free to join any team he wanted to within a week of that deal.

[Captain Blue]

This is what ticks me off the most about people that just blindly hate Mack.  They criticize him for things he doesn't deserve criticism for.

 

The man built a currently 1-6 team, and one that has sucked for two years now.  There is plenty of legitimate things to criticize Mack for.  That does not mean every move (or non-move) he made was wrong.  Fans at this point just love to revise history here and blame literally everything on him now.  I could not stop facepalming through half this thread. 

[17to85]

This is what ticks me off the most about people that just blindly hate Mack.  They criticize him for things he doesn't deserve criticism for.

 

The man built a currently 1-6 team, and one that has sucked for two years now.  There is plenty of legitimate things to criticize Mack for.  That does not mean every move (or non-move) he made was wrong.  Fans at this point just love to revise history here and blame literally everything on him now.  I could not stop facepalming through half this thread. 

This, so much this. No need to invent things to be critical of, there's plenty of real things. This city just NEEDS a scapegoat and for the Bombers it was Mack. He was the devil himself to some people. 

 

Yeah no one is going to question his firing, his record is what it is, but let's not discredit some of the good things the guy did do. 

[johnzo]

Mack was scared to take a risk. Afraid of losing his job if trading for Reilly didn't work out. ... Just once, taking a risk would have been the thing to do to try & get a quality qb. 

 

Mike Reilly would have been as good a QB for the 2013 Bombers as Dieter Brock was for the 1984 Bombers. 

[Jacquie]

Fact is that none of us know what happened or what was offered...  we only got Mack's version in the freep - just like we got Mack's version of the Labatte fiasco.

 

I can't find the link but there was a story at TSN where Buono was quoted as saying he had given the Eskimos permission to speak to Reilly before the trade was finalized.

 

From the blog of Lions beat reporter, Lowell Ulrich:

 

“Once the season was over I started looking around. Edmonton was at the top of my list. I told myself if they make a real run at me I’m not going to turn that down,” Reilly said. 

http://www.cflblogzone.com/2013/02/uproar-fame-fleeting-after-leaving-lions/

 

The same entry refers to a TSN report which said if Reilly maxes out his incentives he would make $210,000. That is less than what Elliott or Brink would have made if either had maxed out their incentives if I'm remembering what Mike had said about their contracts correctly.

[TBURGESS]

 

 

Hindsight, my Aunt Fanny.  I said it at the time and I stick with it now.  We should have gone after Reilly.  If we couldn't get him, we should have settled for Glenn.  We shouldn't have kept Buck.  We should have kept Elliott. 

 

 

 

BTW: It was never a guarantee.  It was a calculated risk.  No one said it was a no-brainer.  

 

 

Total 20-20 Hindsight.  If Reilly was shitting the bed right now you wouldn't even be talking about this.  Nobody would be.  In fact, up until a few weeks ago Reilly was shitting the bed.  And I still don't see him getting through this season alive.  There is no way he can keep getting smoked like that game in and game out and surviving.

 

Also - if the Bombers had tried for Reilly and failed, by giving up a first round draft pick and cutting QB's, you'd be the first one hollering about how stupid they were.  Yeah it was a calculated risk, and a risk that would have resulted in failure.  Reilly was going to Edmonton.

 

You obviously don't understand what 20-20 hindsight means.  I am saying the same thing now as I did then.  That's not 20-20 hindsight.  It's reading the situation properly AT THE TIME.  

 

If Reilly didn't play well, we would be talking about it, because you would be telling folks that they needed to 'eat crow', kind of like the two or three games Jade actually played well.  If the Bombers had given up a 1st or 2nd rounder and not signed Reilly, I'd be saying they made a huge mistake, because.... now try and follow along here... They would have made a huge mistake!  

 

As soon as Edmonton made the trade, Reilly was going to Edmonton.  Before that the situation wasn't anywhere near as clear, although I'll give you that Mack probably wouldn't have outbid Edmonton anyway because that's not what Mack ever did, but that was Mack's choice.

[Floyd]

 

Fact is that none of us know what happened or what was offered...  we only got Mack's version in the freep - just like we got Mack's version of the Labatte fiasco.

 

I can't find the link but there was a story at TSN where Buono was quoted as saying he had given the Eskimos permission to speak to Reilly before the trade was finalized.

 

From the blog of Lions beat reporter, Lowell Ulrich:

 

“Once the season was over I started looking around. Edmonton was at the top of my list. I told myself if they make a real run at me I’m not going to turn that down,” Reilly said. 

http://www.cflblogzone.com/2013/02/uproar-fame-fleeting-after-leaving-lions/

 

The same entry refers to a TSN report which said if Reilly maxes out his incentives he would make $210,000. That is less than what Elliott or Brink would have made if either had maxed out their incentives if I'm remembering what Mike had said about their contracts correctly.

 

 

Well, all I was saying is that maybe we never actually proposed a trade to Buono?  I never heard anyone say that we did...  before or after.  All we know if that Hervey offered up a swap of picks and we either balked or were not given the same opportunity.

 

SO...  after all these years in the CFl... why would Buono not call up Mack and say Hervey offered us such and such - do you want to counter?  Maybe he didn't Joe's comments after he scooped Westerman on us or maybe Joe just never made contact in the first place...  we will never know.

 

Basically, we either had a GM who had almost zero contact/relations with other GMs or one that just continuously got outbid or one who had a tough time because no one wants to play in Winnipeg...  I guess we will see in this off season how many guys are okay with the peg.

 

And I mean seriously, what do you think Reilly was going to say after signing with Edmonton...?  "Yeah, the Eskimos are great but it would have been awesome to be a bomber'...?

[billfrank]

 

When it became apparent that not only could they NOT get a 1st rounder from either WPG or EDM, but that the best they were going to do was EDM's 2nd rounder, they most likely tried to get WPG to up our offer, and we most likely balked.  Keep in mind that this was all done with every GM having knowledge of the new TV deal coming down the pipe, and the cap and cash flow impacts to each team.  I sincerely doubt money had anything to do with trading or not trading for Mike Reilly.  Mack most likely followed his M.O. to not ever even come remotely close to overpaying a free agent. 

 

 

 

Edmonton did not have a1st rounder to trade.

BC got an offer from Edmonton for an asset they were going to lose.

BC simply tried to get more for Reilly through Wpg. (swap picks plus another pick)

BC had nothing to lose.

 

Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal.

 

Gee, I dunno. Lets see, Eskimos wants me to be their starting QB, and releases their starter to prove it. This also demonstrates they are willing to pay me starters money. Hervey approaches BC (not the reverse) and is willing to give up a second round pick in 2014, and swap second round picks in 2013 for the right to sign me prior to free agency. Mack on the other hand did not bother approaching BC about acquiring me. Mack won't up edmonton's offer for the right to talk to me, (essentially conceeding to edmonton the right to try and sign me) and is hanging on to all three of their QBs, including their starter. Gee they must really want me badly, I'm sure they'll spare to expense to sign me. Oh ya, and Winnipeg has a GM with a reputation for being cheap and not bending over backwards to sign free agents. You're right, no reason to take a good offer on the table from Edmonton when clearly something solid and so much better was definitely on the horizon from Joe Mack. What happens if once free agency arrives, Joe Mack makes a mediocre offer, and tells me that I'll have an opportunity  to earn the starting job over the next year or 2, and if I succeed, then I'll get paid starters money?

 

Ya, you could argue that Riley could always could go back and try to pick up Edmonton's offer, but there's no guarantee the exact offer is still there. If I was Riley, I'd do exactly what he did. A bird in the hand....

[Mr Dee]

Nice story.

 

 

I really didn't think I'd have to add the rest of the line because it was adequately explained...but just for you, 'cause you tell a special story.

 

"Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal". -- because he had already made up his mind.

[billfrank]

Nice story.

 

 

I really didn't think I'd have to add the rest of the line because it was adequately explained...but just for you, 'cause you tell a special story.

 

"Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal". -- because he had already made up his mind.

Glad you enjoyed it, I worked hard on it and its late. We agree he made up his mind. That his decision was preordained and had nothing to do with how Hervey and Mack approached the situation, not so much. Ultimately though, I'll grant you its speculation (on both sides of the argument.) 

[iso_55]

 

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

 

Kool aid is way better than Haterade.

 

 

 

Ah, the Joe Mack kool aid drinkers. Their boy just couldn't have been at fault for the fiasco on the field. Loyal to the end, huh Mr. Dee?

 

Kool aid is way better than Haterade.

 

You know even I like that.

[iso_55]

 

Nice story.

 

 

I really didn't think I'd have to add the rest of the line because it was adequately explained...but just for you, 'cause you tell a special story.

 

"Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal". -- because he had already made up his mind.

Glad you enjoyed it, I worked hard on it and its late. We agree he made up his mind. That his decision was preordained and had nothing to do with how Hervey and Mack approached the situation, not so much. Ultimately though, I'll grant you its speculation (on both sides of the argument.) 

 

It is speculation. We don't know but the Mack apologists here always are quick to defend the fact that Mack couldn't get Reilly like they absolutely 100% know  the facts when they don't.

[Onyenegecha]

 

 

Nice story.

 

 

I really didn't think I'd have to add the rest of the line because it was adequately explained...but just for you, 'cause you tell a special story.

 

"Nobody can adequately explain why Reilly wouldn't wait 2 weeks to optimize his deal". -- because he had already made up his mind.

Glad you enjoyed it, I worked hard on it and its late. We agree he made up his mind. That his decision was preordained and had nothing to do with how Hervey and Mack approached the situation, not so much. Ultimately though, I'll grant you its speculation (on both sides of the argument.) 

 

It is speculation. We don't know but the Mack apologists here always are quick to defend the fact that Mack couldn't get Reilly like they absolutely 100% know  the facts when they don't.

 

 

Both sides are speculating. No one, on either side of the argument has 100% of the facts. What I'm asking is this: "What if we gave traded down four spots in the CFL draft, where four spots is the difference between Jabar Westerman and Ameet Pall or Henoc Muamba and Nate Coehoorn, to get a guy who:

- has 55 career completions (btw, Justin Goltz has 45 completions in 2013)

- is a pending free agent and has the option to go to the highest bidder in 14 days

- oh and by the way, you can't talk to him at all until we finalize this deal

 

If you were comfortable with that risk, more power to you. I wouldn't be. I'm also not a CFL GM. Even if the last point is pure speculation, the first two facts are enough to scare me off.

 

Another reason I would hesitate on pulling the trigger:

 

Player A: 110-181, 1,193 yards, 6 TD, 8 INT, 39 car, 204 yds, 2 TD

Player B: 53-74, 684 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT, 34 car, 122 yds, 2 TD

Player C: 66-108, 854 yards, 2 TD, 5 INT, 4 car, 14 yds, 0 TD

Player D: 45-78, 476 yards, 2TD, 2 INT, 23 car, 84 yds, 4 TD

 

Player B of course is Mike Reilly's 2012 stats. Player A? Stefan LeFors in 2007. Player D is Justin Goltz in 2013, and Player C, just for kicks, is apparently the new low-standard, The Patron Saint of Bad Quarterbacking, 2013 Buck Pierce. Are his numbers the best of the four? I'd say so. But he didn't put up monster numbers either, and we've seen first hand in Winnipeg what happens when you put a backup QB from a good system into an awful offensive system (that either features Brock Ralph running the jet or Shannon Boatman running after the DE that he let fly by him).

 

To each their own, but he wasn't exactly a slam dunk and he wouldn't even be under contract in 14 days. Not only would Mack be trading for an unproven commodity, but one that has the option to leave in two weeks. 

Was it the right move to pass on him? Who knows, but it most certainly is a defensible one.

[iso_55]

Mack not doing the deal was defensable. It was understandable. It was risk free. Mack chose to play it safe & not role the dice. But in 3 1/2 years Burke never took a chance. This was the time to do it. To take a risk & perhaps define his time as a GM. He didn't so whatever. Playing it safe ultimately didn't save his job or make the team win.

[SPuDS]

I still can't fathom people believe we had any chance at Reilly..

he was not going to play here. the offer to even talk to him was too steep, especially when ALL indicators had him liking EDM. not mention that even if Mack pulled off the impossible, Reilly.is probably shelved due to.being crushed to.bits behind our o-line or stuck behind goltz or Buck because we don't know how to settle on a qb.. does anyone truly believe Reilly would.have been the saviour for Mack, Crowton and buchko?

[Onyenegecha]

Mack not doing the deal was defensable. It was understandable. It was risk free. Mack chose to play it safe & not role the dice. But in 3 1/2 years Burke never took a chance. This was the time to do it. To take a risk & perhaps define his time as a GM. He didn't so whatever. Playing it safe ultimately didn't save his job or make the team win.

 

I'm suggesting that it was, at the very least, defensible. And I would argue that he did take chances at the QB spot. He signed Steven Jyles and Buck Pierce in free agency, and brought in 9 QBs during his tenure. And if putting all of your eggs in the Buck Pierce basket when your job is on the line isn't taking a risk, I don't know what is. You can fault him for his decision making, but he certainly was not a guy who "never took a chance".

 

The one point about Mack I will bring up is this: he may have already found a solution to the QB problem. It may have been either Elliott or Brink, it could have possibly been Buck, it may yet be Goltz or Hall. But as long as you have an offensive line where not one player on the line is a top-3 player at his position, and the best IMPORT RIGHT TACKLE you can find is Shannon Effing Boatman, it doesn't matter how many free agent quarterbacks you do or don't trade for.