Don't know what Naylor's sources are, but he says Bellefeuille had been itching to get Porter a chance to prove himself in a real game since training camp.http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-news-and-highlights/clip101111
makes sense.. who knows maby marcel said somthing in an article or interview, i dont see why anybody didnt see this? i mean he becomes head coach n puts williams whos proven he's succesful when called upon moves to number 3.. marcel wanted to see how well porter did.. it worked. why not. what did we have to lose really, and by doing so we might have out next number 1 QB on lock.
So it looks like Charlie wanted no part of Porter. Good thing Obie changed coaches.
Marcel Bellefeuille continues to impress.
Taaffe must have seen something in Porter too or else he would have kept Chang and cut Porter.
Obviously didn't see enough to play him, though.
Well, with Wms. experience and everybody screaming for "Hancock" to play more, including TSN, playing Wms. was the thing to do.
Wow, has Wms. fallen off the popularity map that fast?
Who is this Naylor person? Is he some kind of know it all? I'll bet his sources are probably the smartest people anywhere.
No at all. Just don't see why people are still defending Taaffe for his horrible coaching and sub-par decision making is all.
Regarding the QBs?
Zontar must feel a lot like me when what I say
is 'spun' and I am accused of being a pollyanna.
So it looks like Charlie wanted no part of Porter.
Taaffe must have seen something in Porter too
or else he would have kept Chang and cut Porter.
It would be nice if people just gave their own opinions.
My opinion is that Charlie decided to slowly acclimatize
Quinton Porter before giving him his first CFL action
and that is likely what Zontar meant.
I believe your opinion is
Charlie was a horrible coach
who made sub-par decisions.
Isn't it ironic that, if Charlie had thrown Quinton in too early,
like Chang, Charlie and Quinton may have looked like bums?
and Marcel looks like a hero for being so smart for playing him now?
Rubbush? More like par for the course for Charlie. He was the last guy to realize that Williams had some talent. He called him in off the practice squad and seemed surprised he could actually lead this team.
He did get one thing right though. He knew Chang was a disaster.
And as for Ron's notion that putting in a new QB is "throwing him to the wolves"......you sure don't give these guys much credit. They all want to play. Porter is a classic example of how wrong you are.
This league demands and thrives on continual change. If I recall you wanted Maas to have more time...and Charlie too. Sorry Ron....this league is passing you by.
Charlie wasnt a good coach and his talent evaluation was poor. He had williams as number three last year.........mistake. he had porter as number three this year.......mistake that bellefuile corrected immediatly and appears to be the correct call at this point.
Isnt it ironic that if charlie had of listened to OC and thrown in quinton sooner he might not have had to wait over half a season for a td pass.............
Are TD passes worth more points than running TD's???
This TD "throwing" stat is very over-rated... in a Ken Peters is a good beat writer kinda way.
Just get the ball across the line. They don't ask how. They ask how many.
Nobody minded that no td passes were thrown when charlie was coaching just as long as the wins kept pilling up........well, something piled up but it wasnt wins. Its nice to have a qb that can throw td passes. You can run for all your tds if you want, but as a coach your record will probably be somewhere in the 5-23 range and your gonna lose your job. Most teams like to be able to run for tds AND pass for tds, just a thing they do.
don't give who credit? the players? Huh?
Do rookie QBs decide whether they play or not these days?
Porter is a classic example of how wrong you are.If you can list 10 quarterbacks who excelled in their first year on a CFL team's roster
over the entire fifty years of CFL's history
some people might give credence to what you say
but not people who understand arithmetic.
Porter didn't play all year so he doesn't qualify
as one of the few examples of quarterbacks
who excelled as rookies in their first year.
This league demands and thrives on continual change.Huh?
If I recall you wanted Maas to have more time......and Charlie too.A bit of a spin there, too, mr62, but what has this got to do with the topic
Sorry Ron....this league is passing you by.I will match my CFL knowledge and understanding with you any time, fellow old fart.
ron lancaster, ken hobart, mike kerrigan, chuck ealey, kerry joseph, ricky ray, bernie faloney, warren moon, joe thiesman, tom clements.
Yup, its fun dwelling on the past 'cause the recent past is so negative. But back to the original point: Porter made it out of camp, then picked over Chang then to say Taaffe wanted " no part" of Porter is garbage.
Had Taaffe still been coach and Printers and Wms continued to lose Porter would have seen playing time.
And while we're getting history lesson let's remember Porter only got the start becasue of MB , who was previously known as "Bellfool" and was in the mob's top three of who to fire. Now that the fire Bellfool screams have died down lets' not get too proud of ourselves.
zontar wrote:...." Had Taaffe still been coach and Printers and Wms continued to lose Porter would have seen playing time."
zontar: Pure speculation.
The fact is that Marcel saw something in Porter that was worth exploring and he took action once he became Head Coach. Charlie did not. So far it looks like Marcel made the right move and Porter has shown he has the talent to lead this team and score points.
So c'mon zontar...for once give somebody credit. Even only a little bit. Marcel has shown some some perceptiveness and Porter has shown a lot of talent. So far so good.
And you are exactly right when you talk about "dwelling on history". This thread is really all about the future. It looks like the Bellefeuille "hunch" was directly aimed at that. The recent past just was not good enough.