Blue Bombers Forum
October 22, 2017, 12:32:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Coaching change  (Read 2195 times)
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« 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.

You can't fix stupid.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116



« 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: 822


« 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: 18725



« 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: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« 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.

You can't fix stupid.
swansong
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 624



« 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: 5010


« 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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 400


« 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: 19166


« 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: 2591


« 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: 10116



« 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: 19166


« 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: 10266


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: 1536



« 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: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« 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.

You can't fix stupid.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 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!