Coach Mike' Everything is' O'Shae

[Root]

24 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Craig Reynolds?? I googled Randy Reynolds b/c I had never the name... with no success...

Thanks for the correction. Don't like going on rider sites for information. Could easily have placed names like Brendan Taman, Ross Hodgkinson, Jim Bell, Lyle Bauer, etc. on this list. Taman tried to be a football man but ended up trading a whole lot of futures and was almost as bad as Mack. Hodgkinson and Bell were essentially back-ups who didn't initiate policy or directive for the squad. Bauer was a chemical/fertilizer executive in northen Saskatchewan when the club brought him aboard.

[do or die]

Some consolation......might of passed over some pretty good football guys, but other than Kelly or perhaps Mack......at least we cornered the market on nice guys and real fine human beings....

With MOS's coaching approach and his comments.......the trouble with always converting yourself into an air raid shelter, to protect players.....is that you end up taking the blasts....and eventually the fall.....

[gcdrought]

10 hours ago, mbrg said:

I'm not sure that's 100% factually incorrect, but it's awfully close.

Lol I don't mind being called almost 100% factually incorrect, but it's cheesy to not provide specifics.  Joe Mack was brought back after 23 years of non-involvement with the CFL and made GM/VP Football Operations and assigned the task of re-building the team.  So that one was correct.  And Wade Miller, who had no track record of management success in the CFL, was made President and CEO of the Bombers, and he said that he wanted to restore a winning attitude and winning culture within the organization.  So that one was correct as well.  As was the reference to Chris Jones winning in the past.  As was the reference to the Board hiring Mack and Miller.

I don't care who you are responding to.  If you are going to call someone almost 100% factually incorrect, at least have the courage to explain why so you can be critiqued as well.  I stand by my comment - 100% by the way - that Mack and Miller were given full authority to make decisions to turn the team around.

Edited July 7, 2016 by gcdrought

[Mike]

12 hours ago, gcdrought said:

You clearly don't understand the power structure of the team.  Mack was given full control to run the team.   His title was G.M but there was no one above him who was interested in day-to-day football affairs.  So he was the guy entrusted with turning the program around.

When Mack was fired Wade Miller was hired, as President I think, and he was given full authority to run the team.  He hired Walters, and he and Walters hired O'Shea.  How can you ask what do Mack and Miller have to do with one another.  They were both "the guy" given total authority on football decisions.  Their titles were different; their mandate was the same.  Fix the team.

As for "you're not going to find proven winners", that's a defeatist copout and it's also untrue.   Saskatchewan went out this past off-season and paid big money for a proven winner like Chris Jones and they gave him the keys to re-build their team.  He has replaced 35 of the 44 players from last year's team and I'll bet you Saskatchewan, 3-15 last year, wins more games than the Bombers do this season.  Guys with proven winning track records are out there.  You just have to have the guts to go and get them, and if that means paying more, big deal.  You'll have more fans in the seats with a winning team and the investment will pay off in no time flat.  I gather from your comments that you think it was fine to hire Mack, a guy who had never been a GM and had no affiliation with the CFL for some 25 years.  And then to hire Miller, a guy who had never accomplished anything in a football management position.  The major blame for this team lies with its Board.  They keep on hiring guys with no track record of building a winning CFL team. 

Okay perfect, what do you want to bet?

[Arnold_Palmer]

3 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

Lol I don't mind being called almost 100% factually incorrect, but it's cheesy to not provide specifics.  Joe Mack was brought back after 23 years of non-involvement with the CFL and made GM/VP Football Operations and assigned the task of re-building the team.  So that one was correct.  And Wade Miller, who had no track record of management success in the CFL, was made President and CEO of the Bombers, and he said that he wanted to restore a winning attitude and winning culture within the organization.  So that one was correct as well.  As was the reference to Chris Jones winning in the past.  As was the reference to the Board hiring Mack and Miller.

I don't care who you are responding to.  If you are going to call someone almost 100% factually incorrect, at least have the courage to explain why so you can be critiqued as well.  I stand by my comment - 100% by the way - that Mack and Miller were given full authority to make decisions to turn the team around.

Wait so you fully believe we're going to win 2 or less games this season?

[gcdrought]

8 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

I'll take you up on that bet.

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

Okay perfect, what do you want to bet?

I don't bet against the Bombers.  I actually cheer for them game in, game out.  But I am intelligent enough to realize that it is a bad sign to see a team that has only won 7 of its last 32 games being manhandled last week by Calgary, and not play well the week before against Montreal.

 You guys feel the regime that has gone 7-25 in those 32 games will suddenly turn it around.  I hope you're right, but frankly so far I see no reason to feel that way.   If I did bet against the Bombers I'd suggest something.  But betting on a message board seems a little difficult, no disrespect intended.

[IC Khari]

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

Craig Reynolds?? I googled Randy Reynolds b/c I had never the name... with no success...

Randy Reynolds is the guy who runs this, http://www.beaujenas.com/. If he can get the team to be half as good as his food, you might have something

Edited July 7, 2016 by IC Khari

[gcdrought]

32 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

Wait so you fully believe we're going to win 2 or less games this season?

What part of "Saskatchewan, 3-15 last year, will win more games than the Bombers this year" is so difficult to understand.  There is no reference WHATSOEVER that the Bombers will win fewer games than Saskatchewan did in 2015.  I think the hiring of a proven winner, Chris Jones, will start to pay dividends.  It may take a little time with the 75% roster turnover, but my guess is it'll happen.

Edited July 7, 2016 by gcdrought

[Jimmy Pop]

 

[Jimmy Pop]

27 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

I don't bet against the Bombers.  I actually cheer for them game in, game out.  But I am intelligent enough to realize that it is a bad sign to see a team that has only won 7 of its last 32 games being manhandled last week by Calgary, and not play well the week before against Montreal.

 You guys feel the regime that has gone 7-25 in those 32 games will suddenly turn it around.  I hope you're right, but frankly so far I see no reason to feel that way.   If I did bet against the Bombers I'd suggest something.  But betting on a message board seems a little difficult, no disrespect intended

No. We just don't feel the Riders will win more than us this year. 

Which is what you "bet".

Which is why we're replying.

...these are the convoluted, oft-exaggerated comments that have been the major discussion point this thread.

[bearpants]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

 

I'm sure hiring this guy would help with female attendance, at least...

[Tracker]

8 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I'm sure hiring this guy would help with female attendance, at least...

They would probably have to have undie concession stands at the games.

[Arnold_Palmer]

27 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

What part of "Saskatchewan, 3-15 last year, will win more games than the Bombers this year" is so difficult to understand.  There is no reference WHATSOEVER that the Bombers will win fewer games than Saskatchewan did in 2015.  I think the hiring of a proven winner, Chris Jones, will start to pay dividends.  It may take a little time with the 75% roster turnover, but my guess is it'll happen.

I definitely miss read what you said. You need a hug though bud.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Arnold_Palmer

[gcdrought]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

No. We just don't feel the Riders will win more than us this year. 

Which is what you "bet".

Which is why we're replying.

...these are the convoluted, oft-exaggerated comments that have been the major discussion point this thread.

Lol, frankly it isn't that big a deal.  I think Jones is the kind of guy who's proven he's a winner and he'll continue that in Saskatchewan.  You don't.  As for what's "convoluted" and "exagerrated", I think questioning 7 wins in the last 32 games and two poor efforts to start 2016 warrants significant concern.  There's nothing "exagerrated" about the record.  It's fact.  Fans have every right to wonder what the rest of the 2016 season will bring.

You seem to take the opposite position and feel that questioning the record, who's in charge, etc. is inappropriate.  It's somehow terrible to say that a team built and coached by Chris Jones may do better than a team assembled by Kyle Walters and coached by Mike O'Shea.  If someone made that prediction - having watched our past 3 seasons and our first two games in 2016 - I would understand why they may feel that way.  Sorry that the comment seems terrible to some.  But it's what I feel will happen and I am hardly going to apologize for it.  Both of us are entitled to our opinions without the other one using terms like "convoluted" and "oft-exagerrated".

[do or die]

Well, if we end up with another year of ineptitude.....will be interesting to hear the rationalizations for keeping the current regime on........

Edited July 7, 2016 by do or die

[Mike]

Seems like you're more interested in cherry picking a few buzzwords out of posts rather than actually reading them.

Your last two posts have done exactly what Jimmy suggested. You're convoluting the statements of other posters and exaggerating them to make people sound as if they're saying something that they are not.

Maybe you should invest a few more minutes into actually reading the content of a post before you reply to it.

[Jimmy Pop]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Seems like you're more interested in cherry picking a few buzzwords out of posts rather than actually reading them.

Your last two posts have done exactly what Jimmy suggested. You're convoluting the statements of other posters and exaggerating them to make people sound as if they're saying something that they are not.

Maybe you should invest a few more minutes into actually reading the content of a post before you reply to it.

I had a response all typed for him. Thought it wasn't worth it.

That feeling of banging your head against the wall.... That's this and then some.

[wbbfan]

On 7/6/2016 at 8:29 AM, bearpants said:

give your head a shake... the gameday gif thread is the only thing we have to look forward to these days!

the toxicity is rising to even higher levels, CUT THE GIF THREAD! what ever will we be down to if we went 0-10? Most of the posters hair will be cutting it self.

[gcdrought]

If it's a condition of the site that you can't be troubled by 7 wins in 32 starts then it's probably better for all involved I find another place to comment. I assumed from reading some of the blog comments that objectivity was encouraged.  But there do appear a few who want to beat down any sense of critical dialogue.  I'm not sure why speaking about reality - in this case poor performance - is so threatening but it seems to be.  I guess this site was not designed for that. Personally, as a long-time Blue and Gold fan, I have no idea why talking about reality is so threatening.  You celebrate the good times, be satified with the average times, and wonder what needs to be done when things are bad.  But to some on this site that's not the definition of a real fan.  Criticism is a no go.  To a number of you who are objective and aren't troubled by positive or negative comments keep it up and thanks for the brief interaction.  Cheers.

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

If it's a condition of the site that you can't be troubled by 7 wins in 32 starts then it's probably better for all involved I find another place to comment. I assumed from reading some of the blog comments that objectivity was encouraged.  But there do appear a few who want to beat down any sense of critical dialogue.  I'm not sure why speaking about reality - in this case poor performance - is so threatening but it seems to be.  I guess this site was not designed for that. Personally, as a long-time Blue and Gold fan, I have no idea why talking about reality is so threatening.  You celebrate the good times, be satified with the average times, and wonder what needs to be done when things are bad.  But to some on this site that's not the definition of a real fan.  Criticism is a no go.  To a number of you who are objective and aren't troubled by positive or negative comments keep it up and thanks for the brief interaction.  Cheers.

If you're not interested in reading the posts you want to argue against, you're probably right that this isn't the place for you. I have yet to see you reply to a post in a manner that actually addressed the post you're replying to. All you've done so far is reply to a bunch of statements nobody is making.

Case in point? Nobody here has said they aren't troubled by 7 wins in 32 games.

[wbbfan]

5 hours ago, Root said:

Just a quick list of guys we passed over for various jobs:

1. Marcel Desjardins

2. Roy Shivers

3. Jim Barker

4. Tom Higgins

5. Randy Reynolds

6. Chris Jones

7. Danny Barrett

8. John Murphy

 

It probably won't be too far into the future (should losing ways continue) that Brendan Taman and Mike Kelly re-surface in the discussions!

Some of that list isnt in the league and atleast barrett chose the ncaa over cfl. His name has risen in several teams searches apparently hes happy with what he has going down south.

[Jimmy Pop]

23 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

If it's a condition of the site that you can't be troubled by 7 wins in 32 starts then it's probably better for all involved I find another place to comment. I assumed from reading some of the blog comments that objectivity was encouraged.  But there do appear a few who want to beat down any sense of critical dialogue.  I'm not sure why speaking about reality - in this case poor performance - is so threatening but it seems to be.  I guess this site was not designed for that. Personally, as a long-time Blue and Gold fan, I have no idea why talking about reality is so threatening.  You celebrate the good times, be satified with the average times, and wonder what needs to be done when things are bad.  But to some on this site that's not the definition of a real fan.  Criticism is a no go.  To a number of you who are objective and aren't troubled by positive or negative comments keep it up and thanks for the brief interaction.  Cheers.

Here's the thing: NOT ONE PERSON IS HAPPY WITH 7 WINS IN 32 STARTS.

No one.

And no one's said that either.

The issue is.... and I'm really trying to go slow for you here:

Words matter. So when you say, "I BET THE RIDERS WILL WIN MORE THAN THE BOMBERS" - know that 1) Someone may call you out and take the bet and 2) Most importantly, challenging that one position of yours DOES. NOT. MEAN. we are happy.

The reality wouldn't be threatening to talk about. YOUR reality is threatening to my sanity, however.

So, to review: criticism is fine. But be reasonable and for the love of Stegall, back up the words you say.  And as many others have already said, QUIT cherry picking comments to suit your obtuse needs.  Go re-read our little back and forth here, and hopefully you'll understand wtf people have been so frustrated about. 

[17to85]

35 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

If it's a condition of the site that you can't be troubled by 7 wins in 32 starts then it's probably better for all involved I find another place to comment. I assumed from reading some of the blog comments that objectivity was encouraged.  But there do appear a few who want to beat down any sense of critical dialogue.  I'm not sure why speaking about reality - in this case poor performance - is so threatening but it seems to be.  I guess this site was not designed for that. Personally, as a long-time Blue and Gold fan, I have no idea why talking about reality is so threatening.  You celebrate the good times, be satified with the average times, and wonder what needs to be done when things are bad.  But to some on this site that's not the definition of a real fan.  Criticism is a no go.  To a number of you who are objective and aren't troubled by positive or negative comments keep it up and thanks for the brief interaction.  Cheers.

Do you know what your problem is? It's the dialogue part. You aren't interested in having one. If you were you would read what people wrote and respond to that, instead you are creating talking points and sticking to them even if no one else is saying that. The thing about message boards is that someone is always going to call you out on your opinion. Always. So you better be prepared to defend you position. What you want though is for peopel to just agree with you that everything is horrible and we must have blood!

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

He has less than 20 posts, his name is GCdrought and he doesn't contribute to actual constructive dialogue...

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy

[17to85]

but if we don't feed the trolls who would we argue with?