Blue Bombers Forum
December 11, 2017, 04:11:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Coaching change  (Read 3104 times)
Blue72
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 686


« on: October 07, 2017, 04:55:09 AM »

People say that changing a coach mid season doesn't work but June Jones is proving people wrong. He has changed the look and play of his team plus he even brought in another coach to be on offensive assist and QB coach just recently. So with that in mind why couldn't we do the same and bring in Thorpe as an assistant DC and really help this D. The only problem is Thorpe might say to change people that MOS feels are good players EG (Hurl, Knox).
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 757


« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2017, 05:03:40 AM »

Nope.  Crazy.  Ain't broke, don't fix it.  One horrid game just gets them fired up.

Big difference between changing up a tirefire team (HAM before J.Junes) and changing up a playoff-bound GC contender BB.
Logged
DM83
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5528


« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2017, 01:20:52 PM »

A coaching change at anytime is normal process.

Of course it's not like firing the entire staff, or changing a gazillion things.  Hamilton did it perfectly.  Ere are a lot of good coache around.

It's a change in the sense that you have some new ideas come aboard.the new guy works with the staff, as a co coach, and if qualified or if the staff like the new guy the. A change in stucture or operation could occur.

Jones in Hamilton came in.  He likes the run and shoot.  Masoli is perfect for that.  Colarus was struggling with a poorly conceived offence for the players it had.  Plus numerous starters were injured.

They run a smile offence.  Defence has got starters back, and they are winning games they lost by a point or two.

So yes a change if done right with the right people is  a slam dunk.
As noted this coincided with injured players returning, and then putting them in the best places to succeed.
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837



« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2017, 01:37:56 PM »

...Thorpe might say to change people that MOS feels are good players EG (Hurl, Knox).

Change to who? I don't think we have a lot of options.
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2017, 02:09:27 PM »

Change to who? I don't think we have a lot of options.

Yeah, no kidding.

Classic knee jerk reaction thread, though. The Bombers lose one game badly and suddenly it's time to replace a coach again. Roll Eyes
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2017, 03:20:17 PM »

Nope.  Crazy.  Ain't broke, don't fix it.  One horrid game just gets them fired up.

Big difference between changing up a tirefire team (HAM before J.Junes) and changing up a playoff-bound GC contender BB.


The problem is our defence is broken...and it hasn't been only 1 game, it has been the entire season except for the Edm game. I am still not in favour of bringing in Thorpe now, but immediately after the season, Hall has to be gone and Thorpe hired.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 781


« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2017, 03:54:01 PM »

seems to me it's more of an execution problem, changing coaches rarely fixes that... I'd start with trying to teach some of these guys how to actually tackle someone, or not run past the play... that would improve things vastly...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5443


« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2017, 03:56:07 PM »

I'm not so sure its as much Hall as it is Hurl. We've needed a quality, run stopper, strike the fear of God in the offense MLB and we haven't had one in years. Every offense starts with the Qb, every defense starts with the MLB, and we're lacking there, no if, ands, buts or maybes.
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2017, 10:59:40 PM »

I'm not so sure its as much Hall as it is Hurl. We've needed a quality, run stopper, strike the fear of God in the offense MLB and we haven't had one in years. Every offense starts with the Qb, every defense starts with the MLB, and we're lacking there, no if, ands, buts or maybes.

You can't blame one player as there are 12 players on the field. Hall has been here for 3 years and his defensive schemes have been poor for that entire time can't stop the run or pass, even last year, his only saving grace was the take aways the D was able to generate. This year we are not having the same success with the take aways. It is time for Hall to go as he also has a say in who he wishes to keep on D at the various positions. Thorpe is available and the Bombers better act once the season is over or risk losing Thorpe to another team as he will not be out of work for very long. We will not be winning the Grey cup this year as our D is not championship calibre, our O and special teams are capable of winning us the cup but not our D. We need change this up and hiring Thorpe would be the first step in transforming our D into championship calibre.
Logged
elder
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2017, 11:14:44 PM »

You can't blame one player as there are 12 players on the field. Hall has been here for 3 years and his defensive schemes have been poor for that entire time can't stop the run or pass, even last year, his only saving grace was the take aways the D was able to generate. This year we are not having the same success with the take aways. It is time for Hall to go as he also has a say in who he wishes to keep on D at the various positions. Thorpe is available and the Bombers better act once the season is over or risk losing Thorpe to another team as he will not be out of work for very long. We will not be winning the Grey cup this year as our D is not championship calibre, our O and special teams are capable of winning us the cup but not our D. We need change this up and hiring Thorpe would be the first step in transforming our D into championship calibre.

Agreed.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10717


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2017, 11:20:07 PM »

You can't blame one player as there are 12 players on the field. Hall has been here for 3 years and his defensive schemes have been poor for that entire time can't stop the run or pass, even last year, his only saving grace was the take aways the D was able to generate. This year we are not having the same success with the take aways. It is time for Hall to go as he also has a say in who he wishes to keep on D at the various positions. Thorpe is available and the Bombers better act once the season is over or risk losing Thorpe to another team as he will not be out of work for very long. We will not be winning the Grey cup this year as our D is not championship calibre, our O and special teams are capable of winning us the cup but not our D. We need change this up and hiring Thorpe would be the first step in transforming our D into championship calibre.

Unless we miss the playoffs or never win another game there is little chance MOS fires Hall. If we win a playoff game there is zero chance of firing Hall.  MOS won't do it unless there is some tension present between the two of them that nobody is talking about
Logged
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2017, 11:40:59 PM »

Yeah, no kidding.

Classic knee jerk reaction thread, though. The Bombers lose one game badly and suddenly it's time to replace a coach again. Roll Eyes

It would be more fair to say last week was one good game for a D has been struggling all year.
The lion's share of our wins this year have been achieved by an offence covering for a weak D.

To say concerns are based on one bad game is myopic.
Logged
pjrocksmb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5050


This is the CFL- support our league- Go Canada!


« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2017, 11:42:31 PM »

Yeah, no kidding.

Classic knee jerk reaction thread, though. The Bombers lose one game badly and suddenly it's time to replace a coach again. Roll Eyes

yup chicken littles love to yield the axe after a messy one

deep breaths people
Logged

I don't watch the No Fun League b/c I live in Canada and love the CFL
elder
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2017, 11:45:08 PM »

Unless we miss the playoffs or never win another game there is little chance MOS fires Hall. If we win a playoff game there is zero chance of firing Hall.  MOS won't do it unless there is some tension present between the two of them that nobody is talking about

Unless the defence improves significantly, missing the playoffs and/or not winning another game are certainly plausible scenarios.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10717


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2017, 12:48:02 AM »

Unless the defence improves significantly, missing the playoffs and/or not winning another game are certainly plausible scenarios.

The same defense (minus westerman) got us to 10-4.

They need to improve from last night's performance for sure but it isn't like they haven't played well enough to win games.  They are not dominate but they can be capable, good enough to win a grey cup??  Maybe / maybe not. 
Logged
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2017, 01:08:58 AM »

The same defense (minus westerman) got us to 10-4.

They need to improve from last night's performance for sure but it isn't like they haven't played well enough to win games.  They are not dominate but they can be capable, good enough to win a grey cup??  Maybe / maybe not. 

Which has been incumbent on the offence putting up 30+ points per game. If the offence struggles the D, apart from last week, has not shown it can keep us in games.

In this case I think I would prefer to be a realistic/cautious "chicken little" than an ostrich with my head in the sand.
Logged
elder
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2017, 01:10:38 AM »

Which has been incumbent on the offence putting up 30+ points per game. If the offence struggles the D, apart from last week, has not shown it can keep us in games.

In this case I think I would prefer to be a realistic/cautious "chicken little" than an ostrich with my head in the sand.

Spot on.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10717


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2017, 01:14:01 AM »

Which has been incumbent on the offence putting up 30+ points per game. If the offence struggles the D, apart from last week, has not shown it can keep us in games.

In this case I think I would prefer to be a realistic/cautious "chicken little" than an ostrich with my head in the sand.

Pretty much everybody on this board has had concerns about our defense..
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837



« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2017, 01:34:06 AM »

Which has been incumbent on the offence putting up 30+ points per game. If the offence struggles the D, apart from last week, has not shown it can keep us in games.

In this case I think I would prefer to be a realistic/cautious "chicken little" than an ostrich with my head in the sand.

We run a defence (love it or hate it) that thrives on taking the ball away, while giving up big yardage. The style of defence compliments our offence, which is one of the highest scoring in the league. That is to say, a big part of why our offense scores a lot is because our defence gives them the ball a lot - there's a corolation there.To act like the offence or defence are mutually exclusive units not at all working in concert with each other is being intentionally obtuse.

I would prefer that out defence gave up fewer points. I'd also prefer to have a more athletic MLB. But to imply that we're 10-4 despite our defence is silly. Football is a 3 phase game and there's no way you get to 10-4 without integral support from your defensive unit. Also, it's not hiding your head in the sand to call out sensationalism with reason.

PS: There's a whole other thread on this topic where someone also pointed out that many teams with average defences have won championships. So although people love to drop the "defence wins championships" line, it's more of an notion than a fact.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 01:35:53 AM by Blue and Golden Delicious » Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2017, 02:05:44 AM »

We run a defence (love it or hate it) that thrives on taking the ball away, while giving up big yardage.

And big points. Over 30+ average. Without an offence putting up 30+ points average this team would be 4-10

The style of defence compliments our offence, which is one of the highest scoring in the league. That is to say, a big part of why our offense scores a lot is because our defence gives them the ball a lot - there's a corolation there.To act like the offence or defence are mutually exclusive units not at all working in concert with each other is being intentionally obtuse.

The only "compliment" is that the D gives up just slightly fewer points than the offence scores

I would prefer that out defence gave up fewer points. I'd also prefer to have a more athletic MLB. But to imply that we're 10-4 despite our defence is silly.

No, it's not. Unless you're suggesting we still would have won 10 games with an offence that only scores 20 points on average. If so . . . that's obtuse.

Football is a 3 phase game and there's no way you get to 10-4 without integral support from your defensive unit. Also, it's not hiding your head in the sand to call out sensationalism with reason.

It's "sensationalism" to accurately describe our defensive effort this year? Interesting

PS: There's a whole other thread on this topic where someone also pointed out that many teams with average defences have won championships. So although people love to drop the "defence wins championships" line, it's more of an notion than a fact.

It's a fact that you only win if the D gives up fewer points than the O scores. If Nichols is out there is no doubt our offensive production will suffer and then we'll see how "sensational" the concerns are.
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837



« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2017, 02:44:11 AM »

TBH, I'm not really sure how to address anything you've said here, because its all based in fiction, but I'll try...

Our defense doesn't thrive on giving up big points. An unfortunate issue with Hall's defensive system, which leads the league in INTs, is 3rd in FF, and 4th in sacks, is that it appears to also be very susceptible to giving up yards and points. That's a give/take that the club appears (at least to date) to be OK with. If we were last in the aforementioned categories and last in yards surrendered and points allowed I'm 99% positive Hall would not be our DC. None of the above takes our early issues solidifying one half of the secondary into account (or our additional personnel issues at LB), which contributed to a lot of those points, but that's another discussion.

I could just as easily say that without a defense so good at taking the ball away our offense wouldn't be scoring 30+ points a game - but I also don't like to debate in hypotheticals. If you honestly don't believe those two things are related, I'm not sure what to say.

Most of your responses seem to be based in this hypothetical argument about us having a worse record if our offense sucked. We would have a worse record if our offense sucked - so would Calgary. But that's not an indictment of our defense, it's a fictional scenario that has no bearing on reality. The reality is that we have an average defense that's high risk/reward and good at taking the ball away, which allows our high-powered offense to score lots of points more easily. See the correlation? That correlation means that our 10-4 record is not despite our defense.
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
In Motion
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 99


« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2017, 02:54:02 AM »

Our defense is consistently getting shredded. Long marches down the field against us many times this year.
I think we're about 4 players short of having a solid defense. That's a lot of weak spots!
Logged
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2017, 03:04:30 AM »

TBH, I'm not really sure how to address anything you've said here, because its all based in fiction,

Exaggerate much?

It's fiction to say that the D gives up 30+ on average? It's fiction to say that stat is near the bottom of the league? It's fiction to say that without an offence at the top of the league in scoring we'd be a dumpster fire? It's fiction to say if Nichols is out our numbers will drop?

No point discussing it with you. One can't see what one doesn't want to see.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 03:14:54 AM by swansong » Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837



« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2017, 03:20:58 AM »

Exaggerate much?

It's fiction to say that the D gives up 30+ on average? It's fiction to say that stat is near the bottom of the league? It's fiction to say that without an offence at the top of the league in scoring we'd be a dumpster fire? It's fiction to say if Nichols is out our numbers will drop?

No point discussing it with you. One can't see what one doesn't want to see.

That was literally the first line of an almost 3 paragraph post. But cool; good chat.
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2017, 03:24:02 AM »

That was literally the first line of an almost 3 paragraph post. But cool; good chat.

Hard to take the rest seriously when you start with hyperbolic hogwash
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837



« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2017, 12:02:32 PM »

Hard to take the rest seriously when you start with hyperbolic hogwash

EDIT: I wrote a big response but then, reviewing my above posts, there's no point. I've presented my position pretty thoroughly. Choose to address that actual position, or not, it's up to you. Cheers.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 12:14:34 PM by Blue and Golden Delicious » Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
GOLDMEMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18086


R.I.P. BLUE BONGER


« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2017, 12:36:01 PM »

Where's the Richie Hall thread?
Logged

I LOSHT MY MEMBER IN AN UNFORTUNATE SHMELTING ACCSHIDENT!
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2017, 07:01:22 PM »

Unless we miss the playoffs or never win another game there is little chance MOS fires Hall. If we win a playoff game there is zero chance of firing Hall.  MOS won't do it unless there is some tension present between the two of them that nobody is talking about

You may be right as MOS is loyal to a fault, however, I am hoping Walters and Miller can see our problem is Our D under Hall and will take action. They are in the business to make our team better and even the fans can see our D is terrible under Hall, so they should be able to see it as well and do something about it. Take the decision out of MOS hands if he is unwilling to replace Hall with Thorpe.
Logged
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1637


« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2017, 07:06:10 PM »

You may be right as MOS is loyal to a fault, however, I am hoping Walters and Miller can see our problem is Our D under Hall and will take action. They are in the business to make our team better and even the fans can see our D is terrible under Hall, so they should be able to see it as well and do something about it. Take the decision out of MOS hands if he is unwilling to replace Hall with Thorpe.

I think calling the D terrible is a bit harsh. And has Thorpe ever said he wanted to go to Winnipeg , I mean he is not a guaranteed replacement if Hall was fired right ?
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2017, 07:22:49 PM »

I think calling the D terrible is a bit harsh. And has Thorpe ever said he wanted to go to Winnipeg , I mean he is not a guaranteed replacement if Hall was fired right ?

If you don’t want to call our defence terrible, then you pick a descriptor for a defence that can’t stop the run or pass all year except for one game. Does Thorpe have to come out publically and say he wants to come here before we approach him and offer him a contract? He better be the replacement when Hall is fired.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 07:24:41 PM by Horseman » Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10927



« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2017, 11:16:36 PM »

I think calling the D terrible is a bit harsh. And has Thorpe ever said he wanted to go to Winnipeg , I mean he is not a guaranteed replacement if Hall was fired right ?
Why would Thorpe state publicly that he wants to come to Winnipeg?  That never happens. Strange statement...
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 757


« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2017, 02:58:16 AM »

I'm a fan of Hall, he's not nearly as bad as nearly everyone says.

That said, the expectations this year are huge, even the team acknowledges that.  Even Hall-fan me says we fire Hall if we lose the 1st playoff game.  But if we win 1, 2 or 3 playoff games, you gotta keep Hall.  (I will also make an exception if BB wins every single game remaining in the regular season but loses the WSF -- then you keep Hall.)

If Blue loses 2-3 of the last 4 and loses the WSF, I think MOS/KW/WM take a hard look at Thorpe.  He could really play out well here.  The WFC triad are loyal, but not insane.
Logged
DM83
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5528


« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2017, 06:07:53 AM »

Yeah, Hall is making a great contribution to a winning team! Sure, well Bring back Ryan Dinwiddie to lead us in the Grey Cup game.  One. Guy on all the posts on Hall and you are it.

Not defending Massoli is a joke. He's a one trick pony.stuff the run., make him stay in the pocket and "throw" and it's a thirty to fifteen game for the Bobbers.  Hamilton ran about five different plays. Come on. That's terrible
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 757


« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2017, 08:30:58 AM »

Yeah, Hall is making a great contribution to a winning team! Sure, well Bring back Ryan Dinwiddie to lead us in the Grey Cup game.  One Guy on all the posts on Hall and you are it.

Wrong.  There's at least 3 of us now!  Hall wins 2-3 playoff games this year and the other people (and you!) will be singing his praises!  If not, call up Thorpe.  Won't take long to find out...

Not defending Massoli is a joke. He's a one trick pony.stuff the run., make him stay in the pocket and "throw" and it's a thirty to fifteen game for the Bobbers.  Hamilton ran about five different plays. Come on. That's terrible

Not anymore.  Did you see his across-the-grain run throws he was tossing all the time the last 3 weeks?  He was chucking them so good almost none were dropped or overthrown.  Masoli's CFL future is looking brighter all the time.  If he can nail down some consistency, he'll be a force.  I bet he has a starting job somewhere next year if he decides to leave HAM.  Heck, I'd love to take him as a WPG #2 QB!
Logged
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1637


« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2017, 02:25:09 PM »

Why would Thorpe state publicly that he wants to come to Winnipeg?  That never happens. Strange statement...

Just saying I wonder if he even wants to come to Winnipeg.........
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5443


« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2017, 02:30:19 PM »

Yeah, Hall is making a great contribution to a winning team! Sure, well Bring back Ryan Dinwiddie to lead us in the Grey Cup game.  One. Guy on all the posts on Hall and you are it.

Not defending Massoli is a joke. He's a one trick pony.stuff the run., make him stay in the pocket and "throw" and it's a thirty to fifteen game for the Bobbers.  Hamilton ran about five different plays. Come on. That's terrible
You're right, defenses have got to take away what Masoli does good---roll out and run, and make him do what he's not very good at, throwing the ball. We didn't do that, our D line played poorly, we miss Westerman more than most will admit
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2017, 06:09:32 PM »

Just saying I wonder if he even wants to come to Winnipeg.........

If the Bombers had a DC opening and offered him a contract, why wouldn't he? Huh
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1637


« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2017, 06:12:59 PM »

If the Bombers had a DC opening and offered him a contract, why wouldn't he? Huh

Jus sayin it ain't an automatic slam dunk move.....
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2017, 10:44:07 PM »

Just saying I wonder if he even wants to come to Winnipeg.........

Offer him enough money and if necessary the assistance HC title and I am sure he would come here, why wouldn't he? It's not like Winnipeg is Regina! Grin
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5443


« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2017, 11:16:32 PM »

For someone who's from a major metropolitan urban centre in canada, regina and winnipeg are pretty much the same thing
Logged
BLUEBOMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4924



« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2017, 05:58:30 AM »

I wouldn't want to get Thorpe in.  Hall has shown that he can win if given the right tools.  But yes, our defence does suck in it's current form.  If Hall doesn't fix it by next year, we should be looking.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2017, 06:16:40 PM »

Jus sayin it ain't an automatic slam dunk move.....

And who said it is...? Huh
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3899


« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2017, 06:24:57 PM »

You're right, defenses have got to take away what Masoli does good---roll out and run, and make him do what he's not very good at, throwing the ball. We didn't do that, our D line played poorly, we miss Westerman more than most will admit

I've been heavily critical of Masoli in the past, but he's come a long way as a QB.

He's always had a rocket arm and he's getting better at using it. Admittedly, our DBs didn't have a good night either. But that bomb on the TD to Banks couldn't possibly have been more perfect. His ball placement has been spot on recently, which is the biggest issue he had before. I think he's still probably prone to mistakes if you get pressure on him, but so is Mike Reilly and that hasn't stopped him from having a lot of success.
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2017, 06:48:37 PM »

For someone who's from a major metropolitan urban centre in canada, regina and winnipeg are pretty much the same thing

So you've never been to Regina or Winnipeg...if you had you never would have said this, Regina is very famous for being the CROTCH of Canada!!!!!! Cheesy
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 455


« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2017, 06:50:21 PM »

I wouldn't want to get Thorpe in.  Hall has shown that he can win if given the right tools.  But yes, our defence does suck in it's current form.  If Hall doesn't fix it by next year, we should be looking.

Hall has been here for three years and he still hasn't fixed it...time to move on, how much longer do you want to be saying, "wait until next year".
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2017, 07:10:56 PM »

For someone who's from a major metropolitan urban centre in canada, regina and winnipeg are pretty much the same thing

Uh, no. They're not.

Hall has been here for three years and he still hasn't fixed it...time to move on, how much longer do you want to be saying, "wait until next year".

Until the Bombers lose more games than they win, Hall's here.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10927



« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2017, 07:12:18 PM »

Until the Bombers lose more games than they win, Hall's here.
I don't agree with this.  We need to be constantly looking to improve, and base don his comments this season, O'Shea is not happy with the D. 
Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 930


« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2017, 07:55:56 PM »

I don't agree with this.  We need to be constantly looking to improve, and base don his comments this season, O'Shea is not happy with the D. 

I know, it's a little bit exciting to know he isn't happy with Hall.
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19084



« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2017, 08:34:05 PM »

Uh, no. They're not.

Until the Bombers lose more games than they win, Hall's here.


Well we won't lose more games than we win this year, with ten wins and all. I don't at all think that means he's a lock for next year. In fact, I think Hall is under the microscope these last four games and playoffs. Good performances down the stretch and playoffs and he's probably back. More games like that disaster they played last week and he'll be gone. He'll have to be. Can't win with that.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2017, 10:08:49 PM »

I don't agree with this.  We need to be constantly looking to improve, and base don his comments this season, O'Shea is not happy with the D. 

That's not what I meant. Last season and this one, the team has won more games than it has lost. That's why he wasn't fired last season and won't be fired until this campaign wraps up for good (unless that outcome is a championship).

Of course you're always looking to improve but if the wins keep coming, it's difficult to justify firing anyone.

Well we won't lose more games than we win this year, with ten wins and all. I don't at all think that means he's a lock for next year. In fact, I think Hall is under the microscope these last four games and playoffs. Good performances down the stretch and playoffs and he's probably back. More games like that disaster they played last week and he'll be gone. He'll have to be. Can't win with that.

This is true. I think at this point, it's Grey Cup or bust where Hall's tenure is concerned. And by Grey Cup, I mean a victory.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 709



« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2017, 10:45:00 PM »

We need to be constantly looking to improve

Couldn't agree more which is why I always wince when comments are made in ref to the poor showing of the D this year and people pop up to tell us everything is fine and nothing needs to change.

Good enough is rarely good enough
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5443


« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2017, 01:58:14 AM »

Uh, no. They're not.

Until the Bombers lose more games than they win, Hall's here.
to us they're not, but to someone from Montreal, they're both the same...small towns on the prairies, close to pretty much nothing.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 781


« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2017, 06:32:56 AM »

Okay, I'm not advocating for or against keeping or firing anyone, but, I do have questions and I'd like for those that feel strongly one way or the other on this matter to chime in, if you'd like...

I'm not positive where the problem lies, it the defensive scheme, or the ability to execute the scheme? After all, Hall can't go out on the field and play for them so the players have to be able to implement his scheme. Because what I'm seeing a lot of the time is it's big plays that are killing us, the D will hang tough and look like we're going to stop them and then turn around and give up the big play. So, is it the players or the scheme in general?

Another thing that really bothers me is lack of sound fundamentals, like tackling, pursuing the play, and maintaining your assignment. Too many times you'll see our D engage a player for what looks like a short, or no gain, only have them try to arm tackle them or lay the 'big hit' on them only to see their back or receiver blow through 2, 3, or 4 of our defenders. Then there is the over pursuit of the play, whether it be a back in the backfield or the quarterback, our front line defense seems to run past the play and leave huge running lanes for our opponents. So again, is it the scheme or the execution of the scheme? And, at what point does MOS have to begin to take some of the responsibility for these types of problems? You'd have to believe that he is just as responsible as Hall is when it comes to these types of problem.

And except for that last game, you'll see the D stop their O 2 or 3 drives in a row and then the next 2 or 3 drives they seem to have their way with us. Again, is this a product of the scheme or the players?

And lastly, I read all of the time on here about MOS' loyalty when it comes to players and coaches. I don't remember if it was the last game or the one before but the announcers commented and showed a short clip of MOS going around to every single player during warm ups and chatting them up and shaking their hand. I wonder if what is viewed as loyalty is MOS trying to promote an environment of trust in hope that the players are comfortable with the role and won't be 'pressing' during the game to perform in fear of being cut, or as a coach fired. Because this not only helps your current players and staff to hopefully perform at their highest level, but also becomes a place that others what to come and play in and for. Because I know that if I was a free agent and one of the teams courting me was known for riding their players, or coaches, constantly and were quick to cut or fire them that I would be reluctant to want to play there.

One thing that I do believe in is that you have to develop your own talent from within. This can only be done with finding young talent and working with them and being able to retain them. It seems like there is a lot of player movement in the CFL for whatever reason. But, constantly chasing aging veterans with high dollar contracts is not the solution, other than to help teach and mentor your younger players.

I don't know though, these are just my observations of mine. But the current personnel has shown the ability to be a stout defense, though never for an entire game, so are we a few players short of success or one new coordinator away? Curious to hear others thought specific to your views on the issues as opposed to just firing someone...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
GCn17
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19510


« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2017, 01:26:18 PM »

Okay, I'm not advocating for or against keeping or firing anyone, but, I do have questions and I'd like for those that feel strongly one way or the other on this matter to chime in, if you'd like...

I'm not positive where the problem lies, it the defensive scheme, or the ability to execute the scheme? After all, Hall can't go out on the field and play for them so the players have to be able to implement his scheme. Because what I'm seeing a lot of the time is it's big plays that are killing us, the D will hang tough and look like we're going to stop them and then turn around and give up the big play. So, is it the players or the scheme in general?

Another thing that really bothers me is lack of sound fundamentals, like tackling, pursuing the play, and maintaining your assignment. Too many times you'll see our D engage a player for what looks like a short, or no gain, only have them try to arm tackle them or lay the 'big hit' on them only to see their back or receiver blow through 2, 3, or 4 of our defenders. Then there is the over pursuit of the play, whether it be a back in the backfield or the quarterback, our front line defense seems to run past the play and leave huge running lanes for our opponents. So again, is it the scheme or the execution of the scheme? And, at what point does MOS have to begin to take some of the responsibility for these types of problems? You'd have to believe that he is just as responsible as Hall is when it comes to these types of problem.

And except for that last game, you'll see the D stop their O 2 or 3 drives in a row and then the next 2 or 3 drives they seem to have their way with us. Again, is this a product of the scheme or the players?

And lastly, I read all of the time on here about MOS' loyalty when it comes to players and coaches. I don't remember if it was the last game or the one before but the announcers commented and showed a short clip of MOS going around to every single player during warm ups and chatting them up and shaking their hand. I wonder if what is viewed as loyalty is MOS trying to promote an environment of trust in hope that the players are comfortable with the role and won't be 'pressing' during the game to perform in fear of being cut, or as a coach fired. Because this not only helps your current players and staff to hopefully perform at their highest level, but also becomes a place that others what to come and play in and for. Because I know that if I was a free agent and one of the teams courting me was known for riding their players, or coaches, constantly and were quick to cut or fire them that I would be reluctant to want to play there.

One thing that I do believe in is that you have to develop your own talent from within. This can only be done with finding young talent and working with them and being able to retain them. It seems like there is a lot of player movement in the CFL for whatever reason. But, constantly chasing aging veterans with high dollar contracts is not the solution, other than to help teach and mentor your younger players.

I don't know though, these are just my observations of mine. But the current personnel has shown the ability to be a stout defense, though never for an entire game, so are we a few players short of success or one new coordinator away? Curious to hear others thought specific to your views on the issues as opposed to just firing someone...

The problem is that the scheme is built for November. Hall runs a defence that is built to be, and has proven to be, effective in November in the snow and mind numbing cold. It's built to create turnovers and force QBs away from the middle of the field. In ideal conditions it can lead to the defence surrendering yardage but gaining turnovers. In the cold, it leads to turnovers and incompletions.

Fundamentals are always a problem in the CFL. These athletes are as good as those in the NFL except they are either undersized or lack all the fundamentals. It's kinda what you get with the CFL. Also, some guys are more worried about having a great highlight reel and look to make the big hit. As for the DL running wide, it's because in the CFL you must play contain because our field is much wider. You simply must go wide and leave the lanes.

As for the loyalty criticism of MOS, it is mostly from those that don't understand how a locker room dynamic is built or kept up. From a layman's perspective it appears that MOS can be too loyal, but anyone who has been inside a locker room knows that teams and coaches live and die by the bond they create with each other.
Logged

Unabashed free thinker. No Kool-Aid in my fridge. I don't get blinded by sunglasses at night.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2648


« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2017, 02:24:36 PM »

I think the question of scheme versus execution is an interesting one, and is illustrated by the recent history of Chris Randle.

When interviewed about his game-sealing pick 6 two games ago, Randle was very clear.  He chose to jump the route, and told TJ Heath he was doing it.  He acknowledged that if they had run at TJ, he would have been screwed.  He guessed right though, and was showered in glory.  This illustrates that the players have the ability to make critical decisions within the scheme - in other words, Richie Hall did not specifically call the coverage that Randle executed. 

Contrast that with the first series against Hamilton.  After two successive runs, the Bombers were expecting a short run.   Heath blitzed from the halfback spot (and did not get through), and Randle played up close to the line (looking for a bubble screen or short out I think).  Banks went deep, Masoli had enough time to deliver a strike and we're down 6 points.   In all likelihood, Hall called the halfback blitz, but given the earlier case, I don't think he necessarily called for Randle to be up tight to the line.  That seems like a decision Randle made. 

To sum it up, I think this illustrates there is a certain level of risk-reward built into the scheme but execution and player decision-making is a greater determinant.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10927



« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2017, 02:26:25 PM »

I think the question of scheme versus execution is an interesting one, and is illustrated by the recent history of Chris Randle.

When interviewed about his game-sealing pick 6 two games ago, Randle was very clear.  He chose to jump the route, and told TJ Heath he was doing it.  He acknowledged that if they had run at TJ, he would have been screwed.  He guessed right though, and was showered in glory.  This illustrates that the players have the ability to make critical decisions within the scheme - in other words, Richie Hall did not specifically call the coverage that Randle executed. 

Contrast that with the first series against Hamilton.  After two successive runs, the Bombers were expecting a short run.   Heath blitzed from the halfback spot (and did not get through), and Randle played up close to the line (looking for a bubble screen or short out I think).  Banks went deep, Masoli had enough time to deliver a strike and we're down 6 points.   In all likelihood, Hall called the halfback blitz, but given the earlier case, I don't think he necessarily called for Randle to be up tight to the line.  That seems like a decision Randle made. 

To sum it up, I think this illustrates there is a certain level of risk-reward built into the scheme but execution and player decision-making is a greater determinant.
Good post.  This sort of shows that Hall's defense might be better suited to more veteran players. 
Logged
GCn17
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19510


« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2017, 02:31:55 PM »

Good post.  This sort of shows that Hall's defense might be better suited to more veteran players. 

I think that anyone's defence is better suited to veteran players. There is a level of decision making in anyone's defensive scheme. Players are given options in all schemes and must make good decisions. The role of the coordinator is to put them in a position where the decisions become easy. However, Hall likes to give his players more latitude to risk take than some DCs would allow. It is ultimately up to the comfort level of the player though. Hall will not eat their lunch for not taking a risk, or for taking one and getting burned.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 02:34:08 PM by GCn17 » Logged

Unabashed free thinker. No Kool-Aid in my fridge. I don't get blinded by sunglasses at night.
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10717


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2017, 02:34:32 PM »

I think the question of scheme versus execution is an interesting one, and is illustrated by the recent history of Chris Randle.

When interviewed about his game-sealing pick 6 two games ago, Randle was very clear.  He chose to jump the route, and told TJ Heath he was doing it.  He acknowledged that if they had run at TJ, he would have been screwed.  He guessed right though, and was showered in glory.  This illustrates that the players have the ability to make critical decisions within the scheme - in other words, Richie Hall did not specifically call the coverage that Randle executed. 

Contrast that with the first series against Hamilton.  After two successive runs, the Bombers were expecting a short run.   Heath blitzed from the halfback spot (and did not get through), and Randle played up close to the line (looking for a bubble screen or short out I think).  Banks went deep, Masoli had enough time to deliver a strike and we're down 6 points.   In all likelihood, Hall called the halfback blitz, but given the earlier case, I don't think he necessarily called for Randle to be up tight to the line.  That seems like a decision Randle made. 

To sum it up, I think this illustrates there is a certain level of risk-reward built into the scheme but execution and player decision-making is a greater determinant.

exactly - the defensive players HAVE TO make the catch when an INT hits them in the hands...Heath has dropped some, Leggett has dropped at least one...this isn't a "nice to have" these guys are expected to make the pick - those are game changers and gets the defence off the field.  We haven't executed as well this year as last on those INT's.
Logged
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1739



« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2017, 02:46:35 PM »


Well we won't lose more games than we win this year, with ten wins and all. I don't at all think that means he's a lock for next year. In fact, I think Hall is under the microscope these last four games and playoffs. Good performances down the stretch and playoffs and he's probably back. More games like that disaster they played last week and he'll be gone. He'll have to be. Can't win with that.
Agreed.....this stretch run is the real test for any team jockeying for a playoff berth and a shot at the Cup!  After watching the last game replay our defence looked to be in complete disarray and Masoli looked like an all star QB!  Having Nichols watching from the sidelines certainly didn't help but Hamilton basically dominated us like no other team other than Calgary this year!   

Our D played excellent against the Esks shutting them out in the first half and sealing the deal with a pick six.  When the 3-10 Cats rolled into town they caught us asleep at the switch and it will be interesting how they regroup to play yet another basement dweller.  Wally will have his team prepared and the BBs need to be at their best to win as every team in the west still has a mathematical chance of making the playoffs.   

It's showtime!!
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25528


"There's always next year."


« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2017, 02:49:38 PM »

I think the question of scheme versus execution is an interesting one, and is illustrated by the recent history of Chris Randle.

When interviewed about his game-sealing pick 6 two games ago, Randle was very clear.  He chose to jump the route, and told TJ Heath he was doing it.  He acknowledged that if they had run at TJ, he would have been screwed.  He guessed right though, and was showered in glory.  This illustrates that the players have the ability to make critical decisions within the scheme - in other words, Richie Hall did not specifically call the coverage that Randle executed. 

Contrast that with the first series against Hamilton.  After two successive runs, the Bombers were expecting a short run.   Heath blitzed from the halfback spot (and did not get through), and Randle played up close to the line (looking for a bubble screen or short out I think).  Banks went deep, Masoli had enough time to deliver a strike and we're down 6 points.   In all likelihood, Hall called the halfback blitz, but given the earlier case, I don't think he necessarily called for Randle to be up tight to the line.  That seems like a decision Randle made. 

To sum it up, I think this illustrates there is a certain level of risk-reward built into the scheme but execution and player decision-making is a greater determinant.

Well said. Proper judgement and execution are no doubt significant factors in the success of this particular defensive system, especially as far as the secondary goes.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

Go Jets Go!

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10927



« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2017, 02:50:47 PM »

I think that anyone's defence is better suited to veteran players. There is a level of decision making in anyone's defensive scheme. Players are given options in all schemes and must make good decisions. The role of the coordinator is to put them in a position where the decisions become easy. However, Hall likes to give his players more latitude to risk take than some DCs would allow. It is ultimately up to the comfort level of the player though. Hall will not eat their lunch for not taking a risk, or for taking one and getting burned.
Yes, which is much more suited towards veteran players, versus a D that leaves less discretion to the players. 
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 781


« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2017, 04:13:57 PM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
KINGCHARLES
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3523



« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2017, 04:19:36 PM »

Have to agree the only way Hall might stay is if the Bombers win the Grey Cup.... Still he runs a defence thats been consistently among the league worst in TD's given up, Points allowed, Yards allowed, yards on 1st down allowed, 30+ yrd plays allowed. I think its because he is a poor talent evaluator and doesn't fully utilize his players strengths. If I guy like Okpalaugo  had a 12 and 11 sack season in TO he should have a minimum of 5 sacks here in the 8 games he's played, why doesn't he? its because of Halls schemes and game plans.
Given its harder to actually be a CB/DB/S or to cover passes period because of the CFL's crappy PI/Illegal Contact rules. I have to ask why The Bombers would have a guy like Randle on Banks initially show man to man coverage than drop into zone coverage then constantly allow screen passes and hitch passes to be completed to Banks. If he stayed in Man there would have been no screens or hitches if Hamilton would have continued those it would have been the easiest pick 6.
The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?
Logged

BEASTS OF THE EAST

I DON'T BRAKE FOR RIDER FANS
KINGCHARLES
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3523



« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2017, 04:21:02 PM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?

they also showed to be a shut down defence against a poor QB in Ottawa...
Logged

BEASTS OF THE EAST

I DON'T BRAKE FOR RIDER FANS
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 781


« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2017, 04:44:42 PM »

The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?

you bring up a great point here, it doesn't seem like we really make any real adjustments through out the game other than the switching back and forth from man to zone schemes as a whole periodically...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10717


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2017, 04:48:35 PM »

you bring up a great point here, it doesn't seem like we really make any real adjustments through out the game other than the switching back and forth from man to zone schemes as a whole periodically...

most of us probably don't know enough about defence to be able to spot the adjustments - especially when watching on TV - pretty much impossible to see.
Logged
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3899


« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2017, 05:32:13 PM »

Given its harder to actually be a CB/DB/S or to cover passes period because of the CFL's crappy PI/Illegal Contact rules. I have to ask why The Bombers would have a guy like Randle on Banks initially show man to man coverage than drop into zone coverage then constantly allow screen passes and hitch passes to be completed to Banks. If he stayed in Man there would have been no screens or hitches if Hamilton would have continued those it would have been the easiest pick 6.
The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?

if he stayed in man Banks would either run straight past him for a TD like he did on the early big play. Randle played Banks extremely well after that big play... you have to respect his speed, so those hitches are easy completions because you don't want to get burned again... but Randle generally shut them down for small gains, including a couple huge plays forcing losses on screen passes
Logged
GCn17
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19510


« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2017, 03:04:51 AM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?

Whether a DL stays wide or not depends on the offence really. You have to play contain in this league because tbe field is so wide and LBers are in coverage.
Logged

Unabashed free thinker. No Kool-Aid in my fridge. I don't get blinded by sunglasses at night.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!