Lawless: Chill Out, Let Miller & Co Do Their Jobs

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

So when should have Burke been fired exactly?  I think he deserved the chance to have a full year with the job, run his own team with a full TC, and see how he could work through the adversity.  After that season, when there was no improvement whatsoever coupled with the fact that he looked completely disinterested, he was rightfully let go.

 

Can't understand the Lapo example either.  He made it to the Grey Cup his second season, and was fired midway through his third, so when was he given more time?  Should he have been fired after taking his team to the Grey Cup?  Or after his rookie year when we lost a bunch of close games?

 

I wouldn't have given Burke the 2nd year. He hadn't shown anything that made me think he could turn the Bombers around.

 

I'll take back PLAP. I wouldn't have given PLAP the extended contract after the GC year, but I wouldn't have canned him after the GC.

 

 

 

Experienced HC's have their record to fall back on as proof that they can be good HC's. Rookie HC's don't have any record, so you have to judge them only on what they are accomplishing at the moment. I can't think of any time in the CFL that a rookie HC was given a 3rd year to see if he could get his team into the playoffs. There's a reason for that... make the playoffs or get canned.

 

Joe Paopao had 5 losing seasons, missing the playoffs in each one, four in a row in Ottawa.  Not a record to fall back on in any situation.

 

You're using the total failure of Joe Paopao as an example? Fired after his first year in BC. Ottawa kept giving him more time for 4 years and never saw the playoffs. He's the perfect example of why you don't give losing coaches more time to get it right.

 

I went through all the HC's for all the teams since 2000 looking for one who'd missed the playoffs in their first 2 years and were kept on. Looks like Danny Barrett was the only one. (Even Ron Lancaster was fired for missing the playoffs 2 years in a row) His high point was 2003 at 11-7. Every other year he was .500 or below. 

[TrueBlue]

 

 

 

 

So when should have Burke been fired exactly?  I think he deserved the chance to have a full year with the job, run his own team with a full TC, and see how he could work through the adversity.  After that season, when there was no improvement whatsoever coupled with the fact that he looked completely disinterested, he was rightfully let go.

 

Can't understand the Lapo example either.  He made it to the Grey Cup his second season, and was fired midway through his third, so when was he given more time?  Should he have been fired after taking his team to the Grey Cup?  Or after his rookie year when we lost a bunch of close games?

 

I wouldn't have given Burke the 2nd year. He hadn't shown anything that made me think he could turn the Bombers around.

 

I'll take back PLAP. I wouldn't have given PLAP the extended contract after the GC year, but I wouldn't have canned him after the GC.

 

 

 

Experienced HC's have their record to fall back on as proof that they can be good HC's. Rookie HC's don't have any record, so you have to judge them only on what they are accomplishing at the moment. I can't think of any time in the CFL that a rookie HC was given a 3rd year to see if he could get his team into the playoffs. There's a reason for that... make the playoffs or get canned.

 

Joe Paopao had 5 losing seasons, missing the playoffs in each one, four in a row in Ottawa.  Not a record to fall back on in any situation.

 

You're using the total failure of Joe Paopao as an example? Fired after his first year in BC. Ottawa kept giving him more time for 4 years and never saw the playoffs. He's the perfect example of why you don't give losing coaches more time to get it right.

 

I went through all the HC's for all the teams since 2000 looking for one who'd missed the playoffs in their first 2 years and were kept on. Looks like Danny Barrett was the only one. (Even Ron Lancaster was fired for missing the playoffs 2 years in a row) His high point was 2003 at 11-7. Every other year he was .500 or below. 

 

 

An example that not all experienced head coaches have their record to fall back on. 

[TBURGESS]

 

An example that not all experienced head coaches have their record to fall back on. 

 

Also an example of why you don't hire experienced HC's whose only HC experience is in losing.

[voodoochylde]

 

 

An example that not all experienced head coaches have their record to fall back on. 

 

Also an example of why you don't hire experienced HC's whose only HC experience is in losing.

 

 

Robert Kraft might have something to say about that .. his head coach seemed to do alright after his losing skid .. 

[Atomic]

I don't know, I don't like rewarding losing either, but the team under Mike O'Shea does appear to be growing and improving. If it's another 7-11 year, or 6-12, it's still a tough call for me. If Willy was healthy we would be at a better record than 4-7, and that's not really on Mike O'Shea, that falls on Walters for not providing good backup QB talent. If we finish 4-14 or 5-13, let MOS go. Any better and I keep him around. Remember Jim Barker went 9-9 then 6-12 then won the Grey Cup. Feels like O'Shea is in the same ballpark.

[Mr Dee]

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

[Jpan85]

Bill Belichick 36-45 with the Browns

[TBURGESS]

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. 

 

Bill Belichick 36-45 with the Browns

Not CFL and the NFL's a whole different story, but lets look at it anyway. Belichick missed the playoffs in 91-93 and the Browns kept him. Made the playoffs in 94 out of them again in '95. Assistant HC until '99 when the Patriots hired him and gave him full control. He's been mostly great since then. Let's call him the exception that proves the rule. 

[blitzmore]

 

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. 

 

Bill Belichick 36-45 with the Browns

Not CFL and the NFL's a whole different story, but lets look at it anyway. Belichick missed the playoffs in 91-93 and the Browns kept him. Made the playoffs in 94 out of them again in '95. Assistant HC until '99 when the Patriots hired him and gave him full control. He's been mostly great since then. Let's call him the exception that proves the rule. 

 

No let's call your arguments less than accurate!

[Mr Dee]

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. 

 

So you can change the criteria as to when you hire a Coach with a losing record? Like wait 11 years, then it's OK.

That's good to know.

[Jpan85]

 

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. 

 

Bill Belichick 36-45 with the Browns

Not CFL and the NFL's a whole different story, but lets look at it anyway. Belichick missed the playoffs in 91-93 and the Browns kept him. Made the playoffs in 94 out of them again in '95. Assistant HC until '99 when the Patriots hired him and gave him full control. He's been mostly great since then. Let's call him the exception that proves the rule. 

 

Lombardi 1-10-1 if any Bomber coach had that record after first year would be fired. Bill Walsh 8-24 after first two seasons. Chuck Knoll 12-30 after first 3 seasons. Cal Murphy 10-14 with BC before Winnipeg.

[do or die]

Tom Landry....

[iso_55]

The Niners came that close to firing Walsh. If he had one more season of losing he would have been toast. What saved Walsh was the growth as a qb of Joe Montana & the incredible drafting of the Niners organization. For about 5 straight years in the 80's they hit a home run every draft & built a juggernaut. Can't say our CFL draft record under Walters is anywhere close to being as successful as the 49ers.

[SPuDS]

this argumenet has become as foolish as this entire thread lol

[ALuCsRED]

I think we can now re-hire Jeff Reinebold.  

[Guest J5V]

Lawless, Doug Brown et al. are entitled to their opinion. The notion that because someone has been given a pen and paper and a vehicle to scribble on makes them an expert is a stretch. They seem to often be able to whip people into a firestorm and at times seem to then relish in it. Their opinion is and will remain simply that to me....an individual opinion and nothing more.

Y'mean, you're not going to demand they give you evidence of the merit of their opinion and then judge if that evidence meets your standards? How very strange. LOL!

[bearpants]

I think we can now re-hire Jeff Reinebold.  

 

As ST coordinator?.... sure!

[TBURGESS]

 

 

But..but didn't Edmonton hire Ron Lancaster and his losing record as HC and do well with him?

Saskatchewan canned Ronny in '80 after 2 2-14 seasons. Edmonton hired him 11 years later in '91 and he did well that time round. 

 

So you can change the criteria as to when you hire a Coach with a losing record? Like wait 11 years, then it's OK.

That's good to know.

 

Nope I'm not changing my criteria at all. Regina canned Lancaster after 2 losing seasons, just like most HC's get canned after 2 or less losing seasons. 11 years later, his first 2 seasons don't mean anything anymore. He might as well be a rookie HC again. I went back through all the CFL HC's for 15 years and found 1 HC who was kept after 2 seasons without playoffs. You had to go back to 1980-1991 to find a failed CFL HC who became good later on, so they are very rare indeed. If hiring losing HC's was a good idea then there would be more than 1 CFL example in 25 (or 35 years if you go back to 1980) where it worked out well.

[TBURGESS]

 

Here's the scorecard so far:

 

HC's who started off with 2 or more losing seasons who went on to greatness:

 

In the NFL... One in the '50's - Lombardi. Two in the 60's - Knoll/Landry. One in the 70's - Walsh. One in the 90's/2000's - Belichick.

In the CFL... One in the 80's - Murphy. One in the 90's(After 11 years) - Lancaster.

 

HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who were kept on by their teams in the CFL since 2000 - One - Barrett.

 

So it works out sometimes, just not very often.

[Rich]

 

Here's the scorecard so far:

 

HC's who started off with 2 or more losing seasons who went on to greatness:

 

In the NFL... One in the '50's - Lombardi. Two in the 60's - Knoll/Landry. One in the 70's - Walsh. One in the 90's/2000's - Belichick.

In the CFL... One in the 80's - Murphy. One in the 90's(After 11 years) - Lancaster.

 

HC's who didn't make the playoffs in their first 2 years who were kept on by their teams in the CFL since 2000 - One - Barrett.

 

So it works out sometimes, just not very often.

 

 

So what you are saying is that O'Shea is going to be the next great head coach with the best parts of Lombardi, Walsh, and Belichick all mixed in?   Wonderful!   

[saskbluefan]

I don't get the thing where they are lumped in together. Three totally different roles and three totally different situations.

Miller... I know he's seen as part of football ops and I'm sure to a large extent he is. But remember his job is CEO. And not to insult you by stating the obvious but that's pretty far removed from being responsible for Nic Demski's punt return.

Remember four years ago when the team sucked on and off the field? We spent more time here debating stadium security policies then we did the backup quarterbacks. Which considering Bomber fans obession with backup quarterbacks is really saying something.

In my opinion the club has made gigantic strides since Wade took over in off field areas. Including and especially customer service. The in stadium experience is much improved (obviously helped by the new stadium). I think the guy"gets it".

Walters... This one is tougher. General Managers are usually going to get more than two full seasons to turn a ship around. Obviously the results haven't been great. But I think the days of the one season turnaround in the CFL are over. Sometimes the results seem to come quickly but that's after a lot of paddling has gone on beneath era the surface that we don't see. ( neg list rejuvenation for one).

I'm very much undecided on Kyle. But who's going to replace him if he's gone? Either Taman or some other teams unproven AGM type. Then you start the rebuild all over.

I would be inclined to give him another year.

O'Shea... It's not looking good. It's not just that they're losing it's the way they lose. Mostly blow outs and self destruction in close games. Mike is supposed to be so mentally solid but his team is as tough as a wet marshmallow. Just looks at the way the collapsed in the games Willy left with injury. Sucking because the backup QB is lousy is on Walters. Completely disintegrating is on Mike.

I really feel Mike is coaching for his job from here on out. Getting to 8 or 9 wins and finding that playoff spot is huge for him. My complete and total guess is the 6-12 or 7-11 would leave him vulnerable.

One mans opinions.

[17to85]

See here's where I have a problem, I think O'Shea overall is doing a better job than Walters is, but GMs usually get a chance to fire a coach before they get put under the gun. So in that case I am in favour of giving each more time. Walters at very least isn't doing anything to harm the team like Kelly was so there's no real harm in letting him have a good stretch to bring some stability to things. 

[rebusrankin]

Lombardi never had a losing record

[Jpan85]

Yeah my bad on that one