Around The League Off Season Discussion

[Blueballz]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Dee Urban Hermit said:

So it seems that the Tiger Cats will be without Butler this season as he suffered a serious knee injury. This may put Loffler on their want list as they will need a national on the defense. Isn't it amazing how things can change.

 

                                                          http://3downnation.com/2016/03/23/loss-of-butler-poses-significant-challenge-for-ticats/

Trade them Bucknor, we can start D. Jones wide side...

[M.O.A.B.]

38 minutes ago, Blueballz said:

Trade them Bucknor, we can start D. Jones wide side...

Or start 5 international secondary.

[Rich]

Saw this on the Twitter feed, and had to really think about this one.

I think I would take the 9 p/o appearances and 1 cup.  It means you have a much better consistent team.

[Taynted_Fayth]

same, plus that 1 win would be phenomenal. playoffs in any sport is the bee's knees even if you dont win it all,  I'd rather just have a team in there to cheer for every year then a couple good years followed by possibly blown up remains

[DR. CFL]

How about simply working towards a winning percentage?

[Noeller]

The first one and it's not even close... 

[iso_55]

2 hours ago, DR. CFL said:

How about simply working towards a winning percentage?

Why does it always have to be an either/or? I like the Stamps method, only 2 years  out of the last 27 seasons out of the playoffs, 5 Grey Cup championships, 8 appearances & the winningest record of all CFL teams since 1990. Always fielding a competitive, winning team. It doesn't have to be either/or. We just think it has to be that way as the Bombers have been an either/or team.

Edited March 30, 2016 by iso_55

[Taynted_Fayth]

2016: All or nothing? sounds good to me

[JohnnyOnTheSpot]

If we are talking CFL one cup on 9 straight years in the playoffs is not very good.  You only need to win 3 (at most) games in a row.  I would think one out of 6 should be average since 6 teams make it. On the other hand 2 playoff appearances is even worse BUT it is about championships. The 70's Bombers were playoff teams but always lost and I hated it.  I say gimme the two cups, the championship  seasons are the ones I like to remember.

NHL is easier since even one championship is so hard to win.  Two in a 10 year period I dare not even dream of.

[GCn20]

If a GM came along that had a foolproof method of win one cup, rebuild for two years then have your next cup within the next two, and could repeat that ad nauseum I would give him a lifetime contract.

[BigBlue]

12 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Why does it always have to be an either/or? I like the Stamps method, only 2 years  out of the last 27 seasons out of the playoffs, 5 Grey Cup championships, 8 appearances & the winningest record of all CFL teams since 1990. Always fielding a competitive, winning team. It doesn't have to be either/or. We just think it has to be that way as the Bombers have been an either/or team.

And for a while Calgary was a disaster and a laughing stock even with Matt Dunigan (a great player and leader) .... what changed? Management!

[Noeller]

3 minutes ago, BigBlue said:

And for a while Calgary was a disaster and a laughing stock even with Matt Dunigan (a great player and leader) .... what changed? Management!

They got a giant, bottomless pit of money......that's what changed.

[Fan Boy]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

They got a giant, bottomless pit of money......that's what changed.

Often those two are the same thing.

[iso_55]

2 hours ago, BigBlue said:

And for a while Calgary was a disaster and a laughing stock even with Matt Dunigan (a great player and leader) .... what changed? Management!

Ownership & management. Noeller says the Stamps have a bottomless pit of money. They don't. The  Stamps never go crazy in free agency. We have a salary cap so every team spends the same. It's the people running the Bombers that are the problem starting at the Board of Directors on down.

[Noeller]

They do have a bottomless pit of money that allowed them to get Huff, Dave Dickenson, et al and keep them happy. One begets the other....bottomless pit of money allowed them to have good management. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Noeller

[JohnnyOnTheSpot]

The Stamps also have had a huge support staff which money can buy.  I remember years when we were short a coach.  Salary cap is for players only.

Edited March 30, 2016 by JohnnyOnTheSpot

[iso_55]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

They do have a bottomless pit of money that allowed them to get Huff, Dave Dickenson, et al and keep them happy. One begets the other....bottomless pit of money allowed them to have good management. 

No, absolutely not. You're 110% wrong. The Bombers refuse to spend money to get guys in here that know how to win. With every head coaching & GM change it's always the same. Hire people with no experience because it doesn't cost as much as it would to hire experienced people. Why is it we continually have rookie head coaches here despite all the failures? Why is it we hire GM's with little or no experience? You can thank our Board Of Director. Is it any wonder this team has sucked for years?

We brought in a triad of inexperienced people to run the show in Miller, Walters & O'Shea after we already had a group of inexperienced management & coaches with the previous regime before that? A massive rebuild was needed yet we hired 3 people who never did any of this before.  It starts with the BOD's & permeates down from there. Don't tell me that Calgary has been successful just because they have a bottomless pit of money. They have resources but it's not bottomless. Instead, let's talk about the Bombers refusal, their absolute refusal to spend the money on qualified people to run the team. The team could bring in experienced people but it doesn't want to. That's the issue holding us back, I believe.

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

No, absolutely not. You're 110% wrong. The Bombers refuse to spend money to get guys in here that know how to win. With every head coaching & GM change it's always the same. Hire people with no experience because it doesn't cost as much as it would to hire experienced people. Why is it we continually have rookie head coaches here despite all the failures? Why is it we hire GM's with little or no experience? You can thank our Board Of Director. Is it any wonder this team has sucked for years?

We brought in a triad of inexperienced people to run the show in Miller, Walters & O'Shea after we already had a group of inexperienced management & coaches with the previous regime before that? A massive rebuild was needed yet we hired 3 people who never did any of this before.  It starts with the BOD's & permeates down from there. Don't tell me that Calgary has been successful just because they have a bottomless pit of money. They have resources but it's not bottomless. Instead, let's talk about the Bombers refusal, their absolute refusal to spend the money on qualified people to run the team. The team could bring in experienced people but it doesn't want to. That's the issue holding us back, I believe.

I don't know how you're saying he's 110% wrong when you're basically saying the exact same thing, Noeller is just saying it's a difference in wallet size and you're saying it's a deliberate choice (which I don't believe is correct)

[iso_55]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I don't know how you're saying he's 110% wrong when you're basically saying the exact same thing, Noeller is just saying it's a difference in wallet size and you're saying it's a deliberate choice (which I don't believe is correct)

The difference? The Stamps pay to have qualified people in place. The Bombers don't. Absolutely it's deliberate or we'd have seen different people running the show here after 2013.

[Taynted_Fayth]

We've had quality guys opt for other places due to what was left from previous regimes.  We tried doing what Sask recently did giving full autonomy to a guy like Jones as being both GM and HC with Kelly but that blew up in our face, since then we've been basically relegated to noobs coming in and dealing with the fall out

** we've tried to go after guys like Milanovich and stubler and been politely turned down

Edited March 30, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[iso_55]

Qualified coaches & GMS will come if you pay them. You have to pay them.   

[bigg jay]

26 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

The difference? The Stamps pay to have qualified people in place. The Bombers don't. Absolutely it's deliberate or we'd have seen different people running the show here after 2013.

There are only like 3 maybe 4 board members (out of a possible 13) left from that regime, so I'd say they've done a good job adding new blood to the BOD.

[Mike]

29 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

The difference? The Stamps pay to have qualified people in place. The Bombers don't. Absolutely it's deliberate or we'd have seen different people running the show here after 2013.

... what I'm trying to say is that maybe they are not able to spend that money as they are not privately owned.

[iso_55]

Just now, bigg jay said:

There are only like 3 maybe 4 board members (out of a possible 13) left from that regime, so I'd say they've done a good job adding new blood to the BOD.

If we have another bad season then we'll see how proactive the BOD's will be.

[iso_55]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

... what I'm trying to say is that maybe they are not able to spend that money as they are not privately owned.

So, if you're right... that decision rests with the BOD's. As I've been saying all along. Maybe we'll finally have a bounce back season but if we don't we're back to Square One all over again.

Edited March 30, 2016 by iso_55