Fire O'Shea

[Guest J5V]

I didn't think so. Since no one can show me where MOS has been given grief by a poster here for wasting a challenge flag or wasting a time out we can chalk that up to being BS. The double standard certain posters are held to has also been proven to be true, however. Very interesting.

[SPuDS]

I didn't think so. Since no one can show me where MOS has been given grief by a poster here for wasting a challenge flag or wasting a time out we can chalk that up to being BS. The double standard certain posters are held to has also been proven to be true, however. Very interesting.

Feel free to search out the information yourself. The search option works for everyone lol.

And I guess we are back to being able to call your opinions on Oshea as BS too or does that make me a bully?

[iso_55]

Can we can this bully stuff? It's childish & stupid. If there actually members here targeting others to try to humiliate & intimidate people here they don't like then shame on them. 

[HardCoreBlue]

Can anyone show me where a HC has thrown a challenge flag with no evidence whatsoever?

Just out of curiosity,  what does that mean exactly?

No tape? or the replay clearly shows good play but the challenge flag still comes out? Because if it's the latter, I've seen it on occasion.

[Logan007]

Can we can this bully stuff? It's childish & stupid. If there actually members here targeting others to try to humiliate & intimidate people here they don't like then shame on them. 

You better just watch it, or I'm gonna beat you up after school!

[WBBFanWest]

 

Can anyone show me where a HC has thrown a challenge flag with no evidence whatsoever?

Just out of curiosity,  what does that mean exactly?

No tape? or the replay clearly shows good play but the challenge flag still comes out? Because if it's the latter, I've seen it on occasion.

 

That's what I was getting at and I have to say that I've never seen a coach throw the flag on a play that was clearly "good" or in a situation that he had no evidence to base his decision on.  Actually, it would make zero sense to do that so I would have to seriously question the acumen of a coach that would waste a flag, and a timeout on such a pointless exercise.  If your guys need a stoppage, call a time out.  If you don't have a timeout, signal for a leg cramp.  The dumbest thing a coach could do would be to waste a challenge flag and then, a couple of plays or series later, suddenly have good reason to use it.  Where I'm from we call that dumb coaching.

 

The point I'm making is that because O'Shea had no evidence that the catch wasn't a catch, no video, no players screaming to throw the flag, he would not be smart to do so, as some people on here seem to suggest.  Again, there are things that O'Shea does that I question, but calling him out for not throwing a flag when he didn't have any evidence to support throwing it is just plain dumb.

 

And for the more sensitive folks out there, please make note of the fact that I'm calling the opinion, not the poster,  dumb.

[Guest J5V]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to ask...since when has O'Shea backed away from throwing a challenge? He has to have something to base it on, you know a player's word, an actual view or a spotter. Throwing a flag on what? A whim? Lose a timeout on a whim? You can't be serious.

I don't know, you'd have to ask him and yes I am serious. It's late in the game, my opposition just made a circus catch that I didn't get a view on yet, my opposition is all of a sudden running hurry up to get on the ball quick when they should be taking their time so I need to slow things down now, what's at my disposal? Time out or challenge flag. I choose the challenge flag because the bonus is there's a chance it could be overturned based on Calgary not wanting it reviewed. Little bit more than a whim.

You'll probably find that very few professional level coaches use "the force" to make critical decisions. I'm thinking that they rely a lot more on evidence, which O'Shea didn't have available to him at that particular moment.

The other way to look at it was he made a decision, without any evidence, to let the play go. If he didn't have time to compile that evidence (Calgary rushing to the ball), you simply let it go? No, you use your options to have time to collect that evidence especially being how critical that play was and the time we had left in the game. Yes I risk losing a timeout, the flip side is I risk letting Calgary move up the field on a non legit play.

Doesn't the team have multiple people watching? I find it hard to believe no one saw even the possibility of a non catch? I think everyone was mystified by the circus catch. It was very obvious on reply. Id expect someone somewhere to raise an eyebrow at game speed since it's their bread and butter

Have you not read the entirety of the thread? And in real speed it looked like a good catch. It wasn't until after the Stamps ran their next play that TSN showed a definitive replay that looked like the ball hit the ground.

And those two idiots (Black & Suitor) were still sporting chubbies over the non catch.

I believe the replay was shown before he next play. I saw it as a non catch and assumed the flag was coming and the next play then began</blockquote>

We never saw the trap catch on the jumbotron. Only hand fighting snd roll over. And THAT only came after snap.</blockquote>

I saw the replay on TV while watching the game. I realise there was some issue where the Bombers couldn't see he replay. Which is in itself an issue for me. The camera angle was perfect close up showing the trap. It was pretty obvious. Like i said I'm not football guru and I assumed it was being challenged and over turned. Shocked to see the next play happen.

 

I apologize if this has already been discussed but had O'Shea previously thrown a challenge flag because if not, he loses absolutely nothing by challenging the play ...

 

" If a team is unsuccessful with their first challenge, they will not lose a time-out.  If they are unsuccessful with their second or third challenge, they will lose a time-out in either the first or second half."

[Jacquie]

The only time I have seen a coach throw the challenge flag without checking the replay or waiting for the spotter to call down is when the play was on the sidelines a couple feet from where he was standing.

[Guest J5V]

I have learned that we had not challenged previously and we could have challenged without risking anything.

[Guest J5V]

The only time I have seen a coach throw the challenge flag without checking the replay or waiting for the spotter to call down is when the play was on the sidelines a couple feet from where he was standing.

He had a free challenge and considering the situation I think he should have thrown the flag. It was late in the game. What was he saving it for?

[Rich]

You risk not having your "free" challenge for a play when you really need it.  When someone (player, coach, spotter) has seen evidence that a call was wrong.

 

No one saw the evidence, no one told O'Shea it was a questionable play, so he didn't challenge it.  There is absolutely no justification to challenging a play "just because".  And thats what this would have been.

 

Coaches have seconds to decide and don't get the luxury of hindsight.

 

Your reason for throwing the challenge was because Calgary was marching and we had nothing to lose.  So why do you harp on that one particular play.  

 

They were marching for a whole bunch of plays on that drive, why don't you complain that he didn't throw the flag on any of those other plays where he would have lost the challenge?  

 

Because you are using hindsight to justify your argument.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

The only time I have seen a coach throw the challenge flag without checking the replay or waiting for the spotter to call down is when the play was on the sidelines a couple feet from where he was standing.

He had a free challenge and considering the situation I think he should have thrown the flag. It was late in the game. What was he saving it for?

 

I don't know... maybe for an instance where he has proof?

 

So you want him to just arbitrarily throw a flag because it was a long catch? 

 

Let's say that he did that on another play and was unsuccessful because it was a legit play,he did what you proposed he should do (Toss a flag on a long play even without evidence) and I don't think you would be here defending that. I seriously doubt you would be defending that. So why bring it up and blame him for it?

 

Serious- some people -damned if you do, cussed if don't.

[Jpan85]

CFL should look at the College football system where all reviews are started by review official. No need to challenge.

[Guest J5V]

This wasn't 'just another play'. It was late in the game and this was the biggest play of the drive, a "circus catch" that resulted in the winning points being scored. A successful challenge takes those points off the board. It was the perfect time to use your free challenge. If you are wrong it doesn't cost you your time out and if another play comes along that you have evidence for you still have challenges left.

 

None of this has anything to do with hindsight. Hindsight only confirmed that it was not a catch. This is about a head coach being sharp enough to think for himself without having to be told what to do. Just because he couldn't get a good look at it before the Stamps ran their next play is no reason to just let it stand and give up a huge gain that could result in the winning points being scored. Especially when you have a freebie in your pocket, which O'Shea had. This is what folks mean about O'Shea not playing to win and playing to not lose. If the roles are reversed, there is no doubt in my mind that Hufnagel (or Austin or Jones, etc.) throws a challenge flag there if there is no risk of losing a time out.

[Rich]

This wasn't 'just another play'. It was late in the game and this was the biggest play of the drive, a "circus catch" that resulted in the winning points being scored. A successful challenge takes those points off the board. It was the perfect time to use your free challenge. If you are wrong it doesn't cost you your time out and if another play comes along that you have evidence for you still have challenges left.

 

None of this has anything to do with hindsight. Hindsight only confirmed that it was not a catch. This is about a head coach being sharp enough to think for himself without having to be told what to do. Just because he couldn't get a good look at it before the Stamps ran their next play is no reason to just let it stand and give up a huge gain that could result in the winning points being scored. Especially when you have a freebie in your pocket, which O'Shea had. This is what folks mean about O'Shea not playing to win and playing to not lose. If the roles are reversed, there is no doubt in my mind that Hufnagel (or Austin or Jones, etc.) throws a challenge flag there if there is no risk of losing a time out.

 

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.  

 

I don't want my coach throwing a challenge flag unless there is evidence to do it.  You never know what is coming next and when you will need your timeouts and challenges.  It is a waste to throw it on a play that will not be over turned.

 

I wonder, if that play had actually of been a catch (which was the best info that O'Shea had at the time), would you still be arguing so adamantly two days after it happened that he should have thrown the flag?

 

Because I have never seen anyone make that argument before on a play that was a successful catch.

[Guest J5V]

 

This wasn't 'just another play'. It was late in the game and this was the biggest play of the drive, a "circus catch" that resulted in the winning points being scored. A successful challenge takes those points off the board. It was the perfect time to use your free challenge. If you are wrong it doesn't cost you your time out and if another play comes along that you have evidence for you still have challenges left.

 

None of this has anything to do with hindsight. Hindsight only confirmed that it was not a catch. This is about a head coach being sharp enough to think for himself without having to be told what to do. Just because he couldn't get a good look at it before the Stamps ran their next play is no reason to just let it stand and give up a huge gain that could result in the winning points being scored. Especially when you have a freebie in your pocket, which O'Shea had. This is what folks mean about O'Shea not playing to win and playing to not lose. If the roles are reversed, there is no doubt in my mind that Hufnagel (or Austin or Jones, etc.) throws a challenge flag there if there is no risk of losing a time out.

 

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.  

 

I don't want my coach throwing a challenge flag unless there is evidence to do it.  You never know what is coming next and when you will need your timeouts and challenges.  It is a waste to throw it on a play that will not be over turned.

 

I wonder, if that play had actually of been a catch (which was the best info that O'Shea had at the time), would you still be arguing so adamantly two days after it happened that he should have thrown the flag?

 

Because I have never seen anyone make that argument before on a play that was a successful catch.

 

 

If O'Shea is 100% certain that it's a catch then there is no point challenging. If he has any doubt that it's a catch then he has to throw the flag. That's what it's for.

 

O'Shea told the media that he saw it as a catch. Was he 100% certain? I hope not as replay proved him wrong.

 

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't 100% certain that it was a catch. However, then he has to throw the flag. The fact that he didn't was a mistake.

 

I can agree to disagree.  

[SPuDS]

This wasn't 'just another play'. It was late in the game and this was the biggest play of the drive, a "circus catch" that resulted in the winning points being scored. A successful challenge takes those points off the board. It was the perfect time to use your free challenge. If you are wrong it doesn't cost you your time out and if another play comes along that you have evidence for you still have challenges left.

 

None of this has anything to do with hindsight. Hindsight only confirmed that it was not a catch. This is about a head coach being sharp enough to think for himself without having to be told what to do. Just because he couldn't get a good look at it before the Stamps ran their next play is no reason to just let it stand and give up a huge gain that could result in the winning points being scored. Especially when you have a freebie in your pocket, which O'Shea had. This is what folks mean about O'Shea not playing to win and playing to not lose. If the roles are reversed, there is no doubt in my mind that Hufnagel (or Austin or Jones, etc.) throws a challenge flag there if there is no risk of losing a time out.

 

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.  

 

I don't want my coach throwing a challenge flag unless there is evidence to do it.  You never know what is coming next and when you will need your timeouts and challenges.  It is a waste to throw it on a play that will not be over turned.

 

I wonder, if that play had actually of been a catch (which was the best info that O'Shea had at the time), would you still be arguing so adamantly two days after it happened that he should have thrown the flag?

 

Because I have never seen anyone make that argument before on a play that was a successful catch.

 

If O'Shea is 100% certain that it's a catch then there is no point challenging. If he has any doubt that it's a catch then he has to throw the flag. That's what it's for.

 

O'Shea told the media that he saw it as a catch. Was he 100% certain? I hope not as replay proved him wrong.

 

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wasn't 100% certain that it was a catch. However, then he has to throw the flag. The fact that he didn't was a mistake.

 

I can agree to disagree.

You do understand the concept of game speed and decisions versus sitting back with benefit of replay and time to look? It was literally 10 seconds.. No replay showed on jumbotron and NOBODY even gestured to oshea to challenge because at game sped, it looked good. It looked good to me in the stands and I was begging for a replay to prove it otherwise. The whole stadium felt similarly as I dont even recal a murmur of dissent at the non-challenge until later..

Its all well and good to sit back on your throne at home and say this or that but on the sideline without the benefit of anyone saying "it was trapped.." With lots of time left on the clock...

Any coach worth his cheque is not going to throw the flag with zero evidence telling him to.

[Mr Dee]

I'd throw a challenge flag on this whole idea of challenging based on a whim..

[Mike]

Hindsight is 20-20, it looked like a catch live to me and I was sitting directly in front of it.

To say he should have thrown a flag just because "there was a chance" is total nonsense. There are a ton of things MOS can be reasonably criticized for - this is not one of them. The fact that J5V continues to pick on the most minute details of the game in order to push his agenda forward really says it all - you're clearly here just to be critical by any means necessary.

My advice? Start familiarizing yourself with his actual legitimate faults so you sound less ridiculous.

[GCn20]

Can't really blame MOS for any challenge flag thrown/not thrown. Blame it on the booth if you want....but certainly not O'Shea. Anyone who has ever watched a football game from the sidelines knows that your view of the game is not the best.

[Ripper]

So..  Serious question here as this is a Fire O'Shea thread. Does anyone think it will actually happen this year?  Heartbreaking loss this week, but like any loss it never comes down to just one play. Its always a collection of events. My take on it is if the Bombers struggle the rest of the way, Mike needs to look at making changes to coaching staff or players on field or both. I don't think he will be fired but I can see him on a very short leash next season. 

[tacklewasher]

MOS will last the season. So will MB at this point.

 

MB needs to be let go immediately and plan put in place to replace him. Even if it means moving guys around if there is not a good option out there.

 

The only way I see MOS being let go is if there is a clear upgrade available.

 

So, yes 2 different scenerios. MB should be replaced regardless of by who and MOS only if an upgrade is available.

 

And I would want someone from the offensive side of the ball to be our next coach. Sick and tired of coaches who don't know about offence.

[Rich]

Personally, I'd give O'Shea one more year.   I do hope they replace Marcel.

 

However, something has to be done because at the end of the day, the Bombers are a business with a hefty mortgage payment on the stadium to make.  

 

Season ticket renewals will likely dip next year, I'm predicting they will go below 20k.  Will firing Marcel help that?  Probably not, there has been too much losing for too long.  Will firing O'Shea help that?  Probably not as there has been too much losing for too long.  The only exception to that is if they can make a big splash of a high profile hiring with a Hufnagel or Trestman (yes I know Huffer is still under contract in Calgary and Trestman the NFL).  But really can't see that being an option at all.  

 

So I think it really comes down to is will the BOD put pressure on Miller who will pressure Walters to make a change for appearance sake, hoping it will kindle a few more season ticket sales.

[Bigblue204]

Hindsight is 20-20, it looked like a catch live to me and I was sitting directly in front of it.

To say he should have thrown a flag just because "there was a chance" is total nonsense. There are a ton of things MOS can be reasonably criticized for - this is not one of them. The fact that J5V continues to pick on the most minute details of the game in order to push his agenda forward really says it all - you're clearly here just to be critical by any means necessary.

My advice? Start familiarizing yourself with his actual legitimate faults so you sound less ridiculous.

 

I also thought it was a catch. But don't we have someone watching a lives stream of the game? I saw a few screen shots from the broadcast that showed it was clearly incomplete. Do we have anyone doing this? I always thought we did...but after friday I'm not sure how anyone could have missed that.

[Bigblue204]

Personally, I'd give him one more year.   I do hope they replace Marcel.

 

However, something has to be done because at the end of the day, the Bombers are a business with a hefty mortgage payment on the stadium to make.  

 

Season ticket renewals will likely dip next year, I'm predicting they will go below 20k.  Will firing Marcel help that?  Probably not, there has been too much losing for too long.  Will firing O'Shea help that?  Probably not as there has been too much losing for too long.  The only exception to that is if they can make a big splash of a high profile hiring with a Hufnagel or Trestman (yes I know Huffer is still under contract in Calgary and Trestman the NFL).  But really can't see that being an option at all.  

 

So I think it really comes down to is will the BOD put pressure on Miller who will pressure Walters to make a change for appearance sake, hoping it will kindle a few more season ticket sales.

 

I won't be renewing next year if Marcel is still on the staff.