Bellefeuille: Burke decides QB on Saturday

[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.

 

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. 

 

I won't argue with you on any of this.

[Jacquie]

Hervey said he told Buono he would up his offer if Buono agreed not to shop Reilly to other teams according to an article at CFL.ca.

[comedygeek]

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.

 

So which is it? Did Mack spend his whole time here playing it safe, or did he spend his whole time here taking chances?

 

Because everyone for the last 3 years has been on him about making "off the board" draft picks and taking chances on guys that weren't the slam dunk (some panned out, some took a while to pan out, and some are average). I think we can also agree that signing Buck Pierce prior to the 2010 season was a massive chance he took, too.

 

Yes, when it came to throwing money at free agents, he didn't take very many risks (or, he made some offers, but didn't risk as much as other teams and thus lost out -- again, many of those decisions turned out to be the right one).

 

At this stage, there's no way I can defend the Joe Mack era. I feel we had (mostly) terrible coaching during his entire tenure here, we've started to revamp and improve the O-line (which while I think sets us up for the long run, did not allow us to be successful over the last 3.5 years), and obvioulsy dropped the ball in the QB department (for a variety of reasons not necessarily all attributable to Mack, but certainly not free of his choices/influence, as well).

 

But his intensions -- to slowly and patiently build depth to this Football Club that could set us up as a winner for years to come -- were on the money. Unfortunately, he didn't start with a team the way the other standard bearers had.

Jim Popp started with a stacked all-American team with the Stallions in 1994, and only had to replace depth with depth moving forward. They continually have enough talent that the depth they bring in has time to grow into a starting role. Oh, and Tracy Hamm followed by Anthony Calvillo.

Wally Buono came into a B.C. Lions team in 2003 great receiving talent (Simon, Clerement, Thelwell) and brought Dave Dickinson back to the CFL. He's kept them in it by finding talent, developing it, not overpaying vets or bringing in high-priced, flashy free agents.

John Hufnagel inherited a team in 2008 with Henry Burris, Joffrey Reynolds, and that insanely good receiving corps. He also had a coach (himself) coming off coaching the likes of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Eli Manning in the NFL. He's built a solid nucleus, and out of the 3 definitely takes the most chances on free agents and draft picks (some that pan out, some that don't), but he started his regime with enough talent already returning in order to win a championship in Year 1.

Joe Mack inherited a mess of missing draft picks, no QB, a faltering O-line with one solid player, and no Canadian depth. Admittedly, he couldn't fix things. He probably shouldn't have had to model this franchise after Montreal and B.C. when we didn't have the talent yet to be so catious and long-term thinking. He should've done everything he could've to bring that big talent in first, and then worried about building stability from there.

 

I still say the calm, rational approach where you only take a few big chances each year and for the most part trust your own eye for talent and that of the team you assemble below you is the most effective approach. It's kept the Als and the Lions in it for almost every year over the last decade (and more for the Als). Too bad it couldn't have possibly worked here.

[Onyenegecha]

But his intensions -- to slowly and patiently build depth to this Football Club that could set us up as a winner for years to come -- were on the money. Unfortunately, he didn't start with a team the way the other standard bearers had.

I still say the calm, rational approach where you only take a few big chances each year and for the most part trust your own eye for talent and that of the team you assemble below you is the most effective approach. It's kept the Als and the Lions in it for almost every year over the last decade (and more for the Als). Too bad it couldn't have possibly worked here.

 

 

I wholeheartily agree. I really hope that when the time comes to hire a GM, they keep in mind that it wasn't the concepts that Mack tried to instill that failed, it was his execution and his stubborn refusal to budge from his original plan that failed. Let's hope they don't do the "Let's hire a guy who is the complete opposite of Mack", because the last time they did that, Reinebold replaced Cal Murphy.

[iso_55]

Read today's story about Kyle Walters in the Freep & the change of philosophy with Mack gone. It'll clear up a lot of things about how the guy ran this team & the (lack of) relationships he had with other CFL teams. Walters had to call the other GMs in the CFL to open lines of communication with them as Mack  never talked to them. I mean, what kind of bloody garbage is that????? He never talked to other GMs?? Like I said, to the Mack defenders on this board.... read that story & the quotes from Walters & then think of the way the Bombers were  & still are  perceived across the CFL & still defend him to the end.

[17to85]

 

But his intensions -- to slowly and patiently build depth to this Football Club that could set us up as a winner for years to come -- were on the money. Unfortunately, he didn't start with a team the way the other standard bearers had.

I still say the calm, rational approach where you only take a few big chances each year and for the most part trust your own eye for talent and that of the team you assemble below you is the most effective approach. It's kept the Als and the Lions in it for almost every year over the last decade (and more for the Als). Too bad it couldn't have possibly worked here.

 

 

I wholeheartily agree. I really hope that when the time comes to hire a GM, they keep in mind that it wasn't the concepts that Mack tried to instill that failed, it was his execution and his stubborn refusal to budge from his original plan that failed. Let's hope they don't do the "Let's hire a guy who is the complete opposite of Mack", because the last time they did that, Reinebold replaced Cal Murphy.

 

I don't know that he was that stubborn so much as he just knew he could find talent without having to overpay. To me the biggest flaw in Macks time as GM was not getting a quality head coach in there who would hire a quality coaching staff. The two biggest things that determine success in the CFL are quarterbacking and coaching. I wonder what might have been with our quarterbacks with different coaching... guess we'll see glimpses of that starting now. They did appear more effective with Lapo around though his ultra conservative style didn't do the team any favours in terms of wins. 

[17to85]

Read today's story about Kyle Walters in the Freep & the change of philosophy with Mack gone. It'll clear up a lot of things about how the guy ran this team & the (lack of) relationships he had with other CFL teams. Walters had to call the other GMs in the CFL to open lines of communication with them as Mack  never talked to them. I mean, what kind of bloody garbage is that????? He never talked to other GMs?? Like I said, to the Mack defenders on this board.... read that story & the quotes from Walters & then think of the way the Bombers were  & still are  perceived across the CFL & still defend him to the end.

The actual Walters quotes or the editorializing that was done by the author of the piece? You know what Walters said? 

 

"I don't know that there needed to be fence-mending, but certainly I made a point to touch base with everybody," 

 

little different than what you're trying to say right? 

[blitzmore]

Read today's story about Kyle Walters in the Freep & the change of philosophy with Mack gone. It'll clear up a lot of things about how the guy ran this team & the (lack of) relationships he had with other CFL teams. Walters had to call the other GMs in the CFL to open lines of communication with them as Mack  never talked to them. I mean, what kind of bloody garbage is that????? He never talked to other GMs?? Like I said, to the Mack defenders on this board.... read that story & the quotes from Walters & then think of the way the Bombers were  & still are  perceived across the CFL & still defend him to the end.

Walters said he made contact to establish communications just in case.  Nobody said Mack never talked to them...that's what you would like to believe. Let's get it right before you spout off.

[saskbluefan]

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

[Noeller]

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

[Onyenegecha]

 

 

But his intensions -- to slowly and patiently build depth to this Football Club that could set us up as a winner for years to come -- were on the money. Unfortunately, he didn't start with a team the way the other standard bearers had.

I still say the calm, rational approach where you only take a few big chances each year and for the most part trust your own eye for talent and that of the team you assemble below you is the most effective approach. It's kept the Als and the Lions in it for almost every year over the last decade (and more for the Als). Too bad it couldn't have possibly worked here.

 

 

I wholeheartily agree. I really hope that when the time comes to hire a GM, they keep in mind that it wasn't the concepts that Mack tried to instill that failed, it was his execution and his stubborn refusal to budge from his original plan that failed. Let's hope they don't do the "Let's hire a guy who is the complete opposite of Mack", because the last time they did that, Reinebold replaced Cal Murphy.

 

I don't know that he was that stubborn so much as he just knew he could find talent without having to overpay. To me the biggest flaw in Macks time as GM was not getting a quality head coach in there who would hire a quality coaching staff. The two biggest things that determine success in the CFL are quarterbacking and coaching. I wonder what might have been with our quarterbacks with different coaching... guess we'll see glimpses of that starting now. They did appear more effective with Lapo around though his ultra conservative style didn't do the team any favours in terms of wins. 

 

 

Maybe stubborn wasn't the right word, but it was the first one that came to mind. I think inflexible is more accurate to what I was trying to say, and it may not have been Mack-specific but a general state of the team. I don't doubt that his philosophy was to bring in young players who are better athletes that he can find, then coach them up. Because you can't coach athleticism. But if that's the GM's philosophy, then someone within the franchise has to find the right way to supplement that. If we're bringing in raw athletes who need to learn the Canadian game, as opposed to CFL vets who don't have the 40 time or the explosiveness of a new recruit, why do we not have someone dedicated to closing that learning gap faster? And we're seeing problems with that disconnect now. From top to bottom, all successful teams, regardless of sport, have one vision, one central philosophy that all other areas branch off from. If young, cheap and new is the way we were going, we got the benefits of young and cheap, but didn't do enough to help offset the downsides of young and new.

[saskbluefan]

 

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

 

 

Can't argue with that.  I guess you would need to make sure you've done your due dilegence (tampering) so that you knew he would be willing to sign with you. 

 

Now, somebody is going to jump in and say no way he was signing here no matter what.  Which I don't believe but I'm not going to argue anymore because it's been argued to death and it's hypothetical anyway. 

[Mike]

 

 

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

 

 

Can't argue with that.  I guess you would need to make sure you've done your due dilegence (tampering) so that you knew he would be willing to sign with you. 

 

Now, somebody is going to jump in and say no way he was signing here no matter what.  Which I don't believe but I'm not going to argue anymore because it's been argued to death and it's hypothetical anyway. 

 

 

Just out of curiosity ...

 

In your opinion, how much diligence is due? I mean, to me, it's an obvious red flag when Wally says "Edmonton is allowed to talk to him, but Winnipeg isn't"

 

Why isn't Winnipeg? The obvious answer to me is that Wally knew we wouldn't like what Reilly's agent had to say.

[saskbluefan]

 

 

 

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

 

 

Can't argue with that.  I guess you would need to make sure you've done your due dilegence (tampering) so that you knew he would be willing to sign with you. 

 

Now, somebody is going to jump in and say no way he was signing here no matter what.  Which I don't believe but I'm not going to argue anymore because it's been argued to death and it's hypothetical anyway. 

 

 

Just out of curiosity ...

 

In your opinion, how much diligence is due? I mean, to me, it's an obvious red flag when Wally says "Edmonton is allowed to talk to him, but Winnipeg isn't"

 

Why isn't Winnipeg? The obvious answer to me is that Wally knew we wouldn't like what Reilly's agent had to say.

 

 

 

See I don't see it quite that way. 

 

I think Edmonton said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said "ok but you can't talk to him" and Edmonton said, "Well then get stuffed" and then they negotiated and something got worked out. 

 

I think Winnipeg said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said ok but you can't talk to him and Winnipeg said "We can't get Reilly which is ok because we can find someone better ourselves anyway."

 

It never made sense to me that Wally said Edmonton can talk to him and Winnipeg can't.  And that Edmonton has to give us a 2nd and 3rd and Winnipeg has to give us a 1st and 3rd.  I believe Wally opened negotiations with both teams at the same place and Winnipeg walked away and told everyone they couldn't get him and Edmonton kept at it and got him.  For better or worse. 

[Mr Dee]

Talk about skewing a made up conversation to fit one's line of thinking.

[pigseye]

Direct quote from Buono himself (note to Friesen haters, when the "." appears, it is a direct quote, even in a Friesen article)

 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/01/31/mack-misses-out-as-eskimos-scoop-up-reilly

 

 

Given all that, you’d think the Leos boss would have wanted Reilly out of the West Division.

“If I only had one partner,” Buono said. “I only had one partner.”

I guess Joe Mack didn’t want to dance.

 

 

imo, maybe Mack didn't go after him hard enough and it wasn't such a slam dunk he going to EE, I mean, how do you know if you don't try? and haven't spoken to him, like you said, to find out?

[saskbluefan]

Talk about skewing a made up conversation to fit one's line of thinking.

 

You mean like saying he only wanted to play in Edmonton and Winnipeg could never have gotten him  because he's from Washington State and Edmonton is closer?  As if he's flying home every day after every practice.  lol

 

Oh yeah, and magnanamous Wally took less and refused to negotiate with one team because he wanted Reilly to get his wish? 

 

That's not skewing the facts at all. 

[Mr Dee]

Now you're just skewing around.

[Mike]

 

 

 

 

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

 

 

Can't argue with that.  I guess you would need to make sure you've done your due dilegence (tampering) so that you knew he would be willing to sign with you. 

 

Now, somebody is going to jump in and say no way he was signing here no matter what.  Which I don't believe but I'm not going to argue anymore because it's been argued to death and it's hypothetical anyway. 

 

 

Just out of curiosity ...

 

In your opinion, how much diligence is due? I mean, to me, it's an obvious red flag when Wally says "Edmonton is allowed to talk to him, but Winnipeg isn't"

 

Why isn't Winnipeg? The obvious answer to me is that Wally knew we wouldn't like what Reilly's agent had to say.

 

 

 

See I don't see it quite that way. 

 

I think Edmonton said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said "ok but you can't talk to him" and Edmonton said, "Well then get stuffed" and then they negotiated and something got worked out. 

 

I think Winnipeg said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said ok but you can't talk to him and Winnipeg said "We can't get Reilly which is ok because we can find someone better ourselves anyway."

 

It never made sense to me that Wally said Edmonton can talk to him and Winnipeg can't.  And that Edmonton has to give us a 2nd and 3rd and Winnipeg has to give us a 1st and 3rd.  I believe Wally opened negotiations with both teams at the same place and Winnipeg walked away and told everyone they couldn't get him and Edmonton kept at it and got him.  For better or worse. 

 

 

Okay.

 

Please explain why Wally would not let ANYBODY talk to him. All it could do is increase the return he could get in a trade.

[saskbluefan]

 

 

 

 

 

I always said it was never about what you had to give up for Mike Reilly.  First rounder?  A first and a third  A second and a third?  Meaningless.

 

It was always about whether you thought Mike Reilly could be your QB for the next 5-10 years.  Because if so, he's worth all of the above and more. 

But is it worth that just for the chance to talk to him? 'Cause there's no guarantees that he'd sign. It was JUST the rights to talk to him...

 

 

Can't argue with that.  I guess you would need to make sure you've done your due dilegence (tampering) so that you knew he would be willing to sign with you. 

 

Now, somebody is going to jump in and say no way he was signing here no matter what.  Which I don't believe but I'm not going to argue anymore because it's been argued to death and it's hypothetical anyway. 

 

 

Just out of curiosity ...

 

In your opinion, how much diligence is due? I mean, to me, it's an obvious red flag when Wally says "Edmonton is allowed to talk to him, but Winnipeg isn't"

 

Why isn't Winnipeg? The obvious answer to me is that Wally knew we wouldn't like what Reilly's agent had to say.

 

 

 

See I don't see it quite that way. 

 

I think Edmonton said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said "ok but you can't talk to him" and Edmonton said, "Well then get stuffed" and then they negotiated and something got worked out. 

 

I think Winnipeg said we want to trade for Reily and Wally said ok but you can't talk to him and Winnipeg said "We can't get Reilly which is ok because we can find someone better ourselves anyway."

 

It never made sense to me that Wally said Edmonton can talk to him and Winnipeg can't.  And that Edmonton has to give us a 2nd and 3rd and Winnipeg has to give us a 1st and 3rd.  I believe Wally opened negotiations with both teams at the same place and Winnipeg walked away and told everyone they couldn't get him and Edmonton kept at it and got him.  For better or worse. 

 

 

Okay.

 

Please explain why Wally would not let ANYBODY talk to him. All it could do is increase the return he could get in a trade.

 

 

Possibly, he told people that as a negotiating tactic.  It's leverage he had.  Really the only leverage he had.  You don't want to pay what we want take your chance Feb 15th. 

 

If everybody is talking to him then he has no leverage because they are all essentially negotiating with him in advance as if he's already a free agent. 

[17to85]

Direct quote from Buono himself (note to Friesen haters, when the "." appears, it is a direct quote, even in a Friesen article)

 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/01/31/mack-misses-out-as-eskimos-scoop-up-reilly

 

 

Given all that, you’d think the Leos boss would have wanted Reilly out of the West Division.

“If I only had one partner,” Buono said. “I only had one partner.”

I guess Joe Mack didn’t want to dance.

 

 

imo, maybe Mack didn't go after him hard enough and it wasn't such a slam dunk he going to EE, I mean, how do you know if you don't try? and haven't spoken to him, like you said, to find out?

or Mack wisely smelled Wallys bullshit and decided not to play that game. Wally wasn't trying to do any favours to Reilly or help rival teams, he was looking out for #1 like he always does. The most logical assumption here is that Wally knew Reilly was going to Edmonton, Edmonton wanted to get it done right away rather than waiting until free agency and a possible change of mind for Reilly and Wally tried to get himself a bigger return by using Winnipeg to either get assets from them or leverage Edmonton into paying more. Say what you want about Mack but he didn't get involved in that bullshit. 

[Mr Dee]

Direct quote from Buono himself (note to Friesen haters, when the "." appears, it is a direct quote, even in a Friesen article)

 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/01/31/mack-misses-out-as-eskimos-scoop-up-reilly

 

 

Given all that, you’d think the Leos boss would have wanted Reilly out of the West Division.

“If I only had one partner,” Buono said. “I only had one partner.”

I guess Joe Mack didn’t want to dance.

 

 

imo, maybe Mack didn't go after him hard enough and it wasn't such a slam dunk he going to EE, I mean, how do you know if you don't try? and haven't spoken to him, like you said, to find out?

 

According to the Wpg. Free Press: (without picking quotes out of context):

 

 

"We had no opportunity to speak to the gentleman and we’d had no feedback at all and nothing to go on," said Mack. "And purely from a practical standpoint, why would you sign (with Edmonton) early unless there’s absolutely where you wanted to be in the first place.

"Because two weeks from now, he would have increased his overall leverage because he would have been a free agent."

Mack said the Lions also approached the Bombers about trading Reilly to Winnipeg prior to the quarterback becoming a free agent on Feb. 15. Mack didn’t say what terms the Lions offered, but he didn’t dispute published reports on Thursday that B.C. was seeking to swap first round draft picks with Winnipeg this year -- B.C. drafts seventh overall while Winnipeg drafts second overall -- and also wanted a third-rounder.

Mack said the Bombers were told they wouldn’t be allowed to speak to Reilly prior to Feb. 15 unless they did that deal and he felt that simply wasn’t a deal he could do.

Mack repeated that he feels the fact Reilly signed with Edmonton today rather than going to free agency and potentially becoming the subject of a bidding war between the Eskimos and Bombers suggests Reilly never really did seriously consider Winnipeg.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/Reilly-never-seriously-considered-playing-for-Bombers-Mack-189254001.html

[pigseye]

You still have to acknowledge that:

 

 and he felt that simply wasn’t a deal he could do.

 

Why? At the time, he didn't know this,

 

 

Mack repeated that he feels the fact Reilly signed with Edmonton today rather than going to free agency and potentially becoming the subject of a bidding war between the Eskimos and Bombers suggests Reilly never really did seriously consider Winnipeg.

 

At the time, he didn't know what Reilly's intentions actually were, he came the conclusion after.

 

So maybe he made the right move by telling Wally to stuff it.

 

All I'm saying is that he didn't try very hard when he heard Wally's terms, he walked away in fact.

[Mr Dee]

You still have to acknowledge that:

 

 and he felt that simply wasn’t a deal he could do.

 

Why? At the time, he didn't know this,

 

 

Mack repeated that he feels the fact Reilly signed with Edmonton today rather than going to free agency and potentially becoming the subject of a bidding war between the Eskimos and Bombers suggests Reilly never really did seriously consider Winnipeg.

 

At the time, he didn't know what Reilly's intentions actually were, he came the conclusion after.

 

So maybe he made the right move by telling Wally to stuff it.

 

All I'm saying is that he didn't try very hard when he heard Wally's terms, he walked away in fact.

 

And you wouldn't walk away from those terms?

[The Unknown Poster]

Mack says they werent allowed to talk to him.

 

Wally says he only had one team to work with.

 

Seems obvious to me that Wally wouldnt let us talk to him so we said "get bent".

 

Mike's logic is the most sound.  Reilly wanted Edmonton and Mack was wise enough not to trade an asset for the right to be told "no thanks".