Interesting, I had no idea. That changes things.

ZA had to recover from that broken leg and definitely took awhile (was he ever 100??) but BT was turf toe, I believe, for most of the year. Everyone was bitching about him and I'm like "there's no way this guy goes from being Bill Braski to being crappy in that short of a span"....I believe multiple beat guys reported a turf toe injury.

He only played 10 games last year. I also think Nate Collins can be a difference maker in there too.

I was disappointed every time they didn't start Big Nate....that guy could be a real force.

Like I was saying in another I love that Nate's offseason job is a Uber driver in Miami area.

11 minutes ago, Noeller said:

ZA had to recover from that broken leg and definitely took awhile (was he ever 100??) but BT was turf toe, I believe, for most of the year. Everyone was bitching about him and I'm like "there's no way this guy goes from being Bill Braski to being crappy in that short of a span"....I believe multiple beat guys reported a turf toe injury.

To Bill Brasky!!! 

Edited March 16, 20169 yr by Taynted_Fayth

30 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

To Bill Brasky!!! 

TO BILL BRASKY!

Typically who would make the decision not to hire position coaches, the head coach or the coordinator? ST coordinator I can understand being an O'Shea call, but with not hiring a receivers coach, would that decision be an O'Shea decision or a Lapo decision? I could see O'Shea having to approve it, but just curious if Lapo may have pitched the idea.T

The only reason I wonder is that as HC Lapo was accused of basically micromanaging and interfering with the offense, is not hiring a receivers coach potentially the same sort of control issues coming to the surface?

Not saying it's a bad idea, but I've also never hidden my dislike of Lapo as a coach. I Hope I'm wrong on all accounts and we have a decent offense for once.

 

 

1 minute ago, brett_c_b said:

Typically who would make the decision not to hire position coaches, the head coach or the coordinator? ST coordinator I can understand being an O'Shea call, but with not hiring a receivers coach, would that decision be an O'Shea decision or a Lapo decision? I could see O'Shea having to approve it, but just curious if Lapo may have pitched the idea.T

The only reason I wonder is that as HC Lapo was accused of basically micromanaging and interfering with the offense, is not hiring a receivers coach potentially the same sort of control issues coming to the surface?

Not saying it's a bad idea, but I've also never hidden my dislike of Lapo as a coach. I Hope I'm wrong on all accounts and we have a decent offense for once.

 

 

I'd imagine since Oshea gave control of the offense to MB,  much will be the same with Lapo and would likely be his to dictate for coaches. Such as keeping buck pierce on board as they have history together

If we've learned ANYTHING about this regime, it's that they do everything by committee. Everyone gets a say....

 LaPo is an experienced coach, I think if he says he can handle being receivers coach & OC then we have to believe him. If this is a coaches decision I'm fine with it but if the doubling up of coaching duties with O'Shea & Lapo turns out to be actual budget cuts by Walters or Miller then I'm not impressed.

They can say what they want, do what they want and hire who they want....the bottom line is they are all under the gun. No singular individual gets to be the scapegoat now and fall on the sword. A failure now is simply that Failure.

21 hours ago, Noeller said:

What the **** does this even mean? What, specifically, about the job of being a HC does he need to improve on, based on your intel from being in the locker room and on the sidelines with him?

 

And you're SERIOUSLY going to say that Walters has given him EVERYTHING he needs to be successful........really?

Is this you before or after you've had your coffee?

20 hours ago, Noeller said:

the key is the word "everything"........

Uh huh.

 

Last year we had the most coaches I've ever seen on the Bombers and that didn't work.  So maybe less is more in this case.  Who knows.  There is no correlation between number of coaches and winning games.

Hell Lapo wanted say in what players were brought in for the offense. Guy is a control freak. All I can say is the offense better be damned good this year cause I didn't care for the hire but knowing the ego he's bringing with him he better back it up. 

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Hell Lapo wanted say in what players were brought in for the offense. Guy is a control freak. All I can say is the offense better be damned good this year cause I didn't care for the hire but knowing the ego he's bringing with him he better back it up. 

That's crazy to think a coach would want a say in the players he's going to coach.

Keep that up and coaches will want to have input in how they coach.

1 hour ago, sweep the leg said:

That's crazy to think a coach would want a say in the players he's going to coach.

He's an assistant coach though. Yes I see some validity in wanting to run an offense his way with the kind of players he wants, but sometimes that's not the best solution when you have a head coach and general manage above you in the pecking order each with their own ideas. Sometimes a coach has to be able to adapt to what he has. Adaptability is the best trait that a coach can have and I dunno that Lapo is all that adaptable. 

38 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

He's an assistant coach though. Yes I see some validity in wanting to run an offense his way with the kind of players he wants, but sometimes that's not the best solution when you have a head coach and general manage above you in the pecking order each with their own ideas. Sometimes a coach has to be able to adapt to what he has. Adaptability is the best trait that a coach can have and I dunno that Lapo is all that adaptable. 

You don't think Lapo is all that adaptable, so your solution is to make him adapt to players he didn't choose for his offense?

You can now have a better appreciation of why people want the duel roll of HC and GM. The GM is to provide the players for the coaching staff to coach. If the HC is the GM then there is little discussion and concern then about getting the right players for you to coach. The remainder of the coaching staff is then tasked to " coach them up".

11 minutes ago, DR. CFL said:

You can now have a better appreciation of why people want the duel roll of HC and GM. The GM is to provide the players for the coaching staff to coach. If the HC is the GM then there is little discussion and concern then about getting the right players for you to coach. The remainder of the coaching staff is then tasked to " coach them up".

This is just the best....anybody have a cartoon of some dinner buns drawing pistols at 10 paces....?

12 minutes ago, Noeller said:

This is just the best....anybody have a cartoon of some dinner buns drawing pistols at 10 paces....?

I dont think such a thing exists lol, however if I was ever slapped by one of these, it's on

Clearly Noeller you never worked for the late Cal Murphy who would repeaditly tell his staff, " you get paid to coach them up do coach them up". 

17 hours ago, Atomic said:

Last year we had the most coaches I've ever seen on the Bombers and that didn't work.  So maybe less is more in this case.  Who knows.  There is no correlation between number of coaches and winning games.

I suspect the correlation is likely between the quality of coaches and winning games. Brings Mike Riley to mind.