April 2, 20178 yr Author comment_256705 4 hours ago, Dee Urban Hermit said: Just a side thought, but I wonder how much the Canadian Dollar and the taxes play in these decisions. I have no idea why he left but it sure puts the team at a disadvantage.
April 2, 20178 yr comment_256713 I'm thinking RB coach is probably one of the lowest paid coaches. If I'm not mistaken for a long time the qb coach was also doubled as RB coach on most teams. Can't blame a guy if other opportunities come up. It's not like he was a coordinator. I can't recall who the RB coaches were in the past. I thought they all double in another position. Edited April 2, 20178 yr by Dirty30
April 2, 20178 yr Author comment_256730 5 hours ago, Dirty30 said: I'm thinking RB coach is probably one of the lowest paid coaches. If I'm not mistaken for a long time the qb coach was also doubled as RB coach on most teams. Can't blame a guy if other opportunities come up. It's not like he was a coordinator. I can't recall who the RB coaches were in the past. I thought they all double in another position. The only thing I'll say is he knew what he was getting into before he was hired salary wise. Cobourne was a player & a coach in the CFL for years. If it was all about the money then perhaps he never should have been a CFL position coach in the first place. If the pay is that bad, which I kind of doubt. Most coaches use these positions to better themselves as they move up the ladder, career wise. Being a successful position coach can lead to coordinator & head coaching opportunities in the years ahead in the pros & college. Most coaches would love to start their careers in the CFL instead of high school, junior college or as Grad Assistants in the NCAA. Just to get to the CFL is a combination of hard work, talent, luck & who you know (connections) for most coaches. Lower paying positions could lead to big paydays in the future. Starting out in the CFL is a tremendous opportunity. Edited April 2, 20178 yr by SpeedFlex27
April 2, 20178 yr comment_256732 He has a family to feed so if he got offered a job that would better his family no problem.
April 2, 20178 yr Author comment_256733 26 minutes ago, Jpan85 said: He has a family to feed so if he got offered a job that would better his family no problem. Yeah, I admit that. I certainly won't disagree as what you say is true. Edited April 2, 20178 yr by SpeedFlex27
April 2, 20178 yr comment_256740 Call in Rod Rust or Dave Ritchie on an emergency basis. And make sure you have a defibrillator on stand-by. Oh wait, they would have already had one for Wylie. Never mind. Edited April 2, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan
April 2, 20178 yr comment_256743 7 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: Call in Rod Rust or Dave Ritchie on an emergency basis. And make sure you have a defibrillator on stand-by. Oh wait, they would have already had one for Wylie. Never mind. whoa rod rust blast from the past. guy must be 300 years old now.
April 2, 20178 yr comment_256746 2005 Blue Bomber defence - still one of the worst in league history as there was no Defensive co-ordinator calling in any plays, just the White Zombie staring off into space. Though it still was a better D than we had under Etch. Edited April 2, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256786 13 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: 2005 Blue Bomber defence - still one of the worst in league history as there was no Defensive co-ordinator calling in any plays, just the White Zombie staring off into space. Though it still was a better D than we had under Etch. Tbh the only thing that prevents this current D from being that bad or worse is massive amount of turn overs forced by our play makers. We couldnt stop the run or the pass for stink.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256791 16 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said: 2005 Blue Bomber defence - still one of the worst in league history as there was no Defensive co-ordinator calling in any plays, just the White Zombie staring off into space. Though it still was a better D than we had under Etch. It most certainly was not. That 2005 defence was the worst I've ever seen in pro football.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256792 3 hours ago, wbbfan said: Tbh the only thing that prevents this current D from being that bad or worse is massive amount of turn overs forced by our play makers. We couldnt stop the run or the pass for stink. So the only thing that prevented them from being worse was being better?
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256796 32 minutes ago, Atomic said: It most certainly was not. That 2005 defence was the worst I've ever seen in pro football. well ok, I guess. Both were pretty bad.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256801 27 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said: well ok, I guess. Both were pretty bad. Oh 2005 was the worst AINEC. Marcus Howell was arguably the best DB they dressed in 2005, let that sink in for a bit.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256809 5 hours ago, wbbfan said: massive amount of turn overs forced by our play makers. This statement alone contradicts any point you're trying to make...
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256820 I remember MOS talking last year about how he hates the term "turnover" and the team uses "Take Away", because he feels like turnover undervalues the work of the defense on those defensive plays. Somehow it's always looked at as the offense made a mistake and that's the only reason it happened, rather than giving the defense any credit at all for it, which some would argue is more often the case...
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256850 6 hours ago, wbbfan said: Tbh the only thing that prevents this current D from being that bad or worse is massive amount of turn overs forced by our play makers. We couldnt stop the run or the pass for stink. Edited April 3, 20178 yr by JuranBoldenRules
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256857 49 minutes ago, Noeller said: I remember MOS talking last year about how he hates the term "turnover" and the team uses "Take Away", because he feels like turnover undervalues the work of the defense on those defensive plays. Somehow it's always looked at as the offense made a mistake and that's the only reason it happened, rather than giving the defense any credit at all for it, which some would argue is more often the case... The only thing that annoyed me about that is the ends the Winnipeg journalists, in particular Bauming, went on and on about this comment last year. Bauming even added it to his repertoire and commented anytime someone called it a turnover. Fine if the Bombers and Tait call it a takeaway but why does the media now need to call it a takeaway? Are we going to refer to some as turnovers and some as takeaways? Always felt like Bauming was trying to suck up to MOS.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256858 Just now, JCon said: The only thing that annoyed me about that is the ends the Winnipeg journalists, in particular Bauming, went on and on about this comment last year. Bauming even added it to his repertoire and commented anytime someone called it a turnover. Fine if the Bombers and Tait call it a takeaway but why does the media now need to call it a takeaway? Are we going to refer to some as turnovers and some as takeaways? Always felt like Bauming was trying to suck up to MOS. I think it's nice to see more nuance in reporting. Not all turnovers are equal. If Kevin Glenn throws it right to a linebacker, that's a giveaway. If Taylor Loffler destroys a receiver across the middle to force a fumble, that's a takeaway. Why not call it by the right name?
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256863 2 minutes ago, Atomic said: I think it's nice to see more nuance in reporting. Not all turnovers are equal. If Kevin Glenn throws it right to a linebacker, that's a giveaway. If Taylor Loffler destroys a receiver across the middle to force a fumble, that's a takeaway. Why not call it by the right name? Go ahead and change the lexicon. Call some turnovers and some takeaways. Don't make a big deal about (over and over again) and call them all takeaways.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256864 They are takeaways. Turnover is just easy because it can apply to offense and defense.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256866 I suspect the prevalence of the term turn over is because most people tend to be offense focused as opposed to defense focused. I mean really if the offense does their jobs perfectly there will never be a turn over because even a forced turn over can still be boiled down to a mistake by the team with the ball.
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256868 Debating whether Rod Rust was better or worse than Etch and whether turnovers are actually giveaways or takeaways... this feels like the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs... 'Toby... Toby Chu?... Wong? Toby Wong...'
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256871 27 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said: They are takeaways. Turnover is just easy because it can apply to offense and defense. both terms make me hungry for some reason
April 3, 20178 yr comment_256932 7 hours ago, sweep the leg said: So the only thing that prevented them from being worse was being better? reductio ad absurdum much? Our play makers last year were in a position to make plays on the ball and force turn overs. vs the front 7 heavy group in 05 with walls, canada, wickman, flemming, brown, etc
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment