Dave Naylor video re: Bellefeuille's "hunch" about Porter

Amongst all the "fire Bellfool" stuff in here I have been giving MB credit . Been giving him credit all season.

This isnt about MB its about your Taaffe/Porter "no part" comment. You're wrong.

Since Taaffe was fired in early Sept. you have no idea what he would have done with the QBs. If Printers was hurt and Wms. wasnt winning its entirely reasonable to expect Porter would have got a shot at some point. And if he made good with that time it would have given Taaffe more to base a QB decision on.

Nailor is a pretty good reporter, he’s been pretty accurate on a lot of stuff all year, especially with the Argo’s.

Fact is Taffe was the laziest coach I have ever seen us have, he wanted no part of making the team around him better and stuck with a bs system all year and threw his players under the bus every chance he could get. If Marcel was the coach all year we’d be in second place right now for sure, he’s more organized and prepared than Charlie and he seems to know a hell of a lot more about his own players capabilities than Charlie ever did. Also Marcel is coaching to win games, all those close games lost before would have been wins with a more aggressive coach.

As a fan of MB i give him credit for putting QP in, having said that... its much easier to throw a raw rookie QB into the backup and then starting role when you're basically eliminated from the playoffs and looking to evaluate talent. When Taaffe was let go we were in a much better spot in the standings.

I agree Drexl, however I’m not sure it was entirely MB decision to put in Porter. I think Obie might have had something to say about that. And, and this is important, I think the reason Porter was successful last week had very little to do with MB and a lot to do with a fella named Danny Mac. That game had Danny Mac written all over it. If MB was calling the offensive shots we would have lost badly. I like MB as a head coach but not as a OC. I think his poor offensive play calling may have had something to do with Taffe’s release.

True, but Marcel was using Charlie’s playbook and Charlie is an offensive coach and it was his fingerprints all over the offence before. It seems now they are using a completely diferent playbook. also give credit to Marcel for not having a huge ego and allowing Danny a lot of freedom in the play calling as well as the system used.

Taffe’s release was no ones fault but Charlies, there’s always this huge group on here who blame the assistants for the headcoach’s deficiencies, because apparantly they think a head coaches job is to stand there and look pretty while the assistants do all their work for them.

thats true but the whole idea of the report was stating that marcel liked him from training camp, couldnt wait to get him into a meaningful game etc. It wasnt about throwing in a raw rookie and hoping for the best. It was about seeing something in him that taaffe either didnt see or wouldnt listen to. He became number two when marcel took over because he saw something in him. Taafe could have played porter lots of times throughout the season and chose not to. That is what the report was about, marcel seeing porter and itching to get him into a game and moving him up the depth chart the moment he got the hc job.

Zontar wrote: "Since Taaffe was fired in early Sept. you have no idea what he would have done with the QBs."

Zontar: I dunno. You are really reaching here.
The issue is that Charlie did NOT put Porter in. Marcel did. Case closed.
I could argue that if Charlie HAD put Porter in earlier we would have been in a better playoff situation. But that would be the same as what you are doing. I would be speculating with no way of knowing what the outcome would have been. Beetlejuice says it well in his post above.

You raise more good points there Drex. I agree with you that Charlie’s inability to react to situations, poor offensive schemes etc really handcuffed the team and individuals on the team. If, in fact, MB was having to make the offense work using Charlie’s playbook than his hands were tied and it showed. If last week’s offensive showing was MB’s playbook than he deserves all the credit. If it was Danny Mac’s playbook, then MB deserves credit for letting Danny Mac run with it. More than likely it was a combination of the two of them and they both deserve plenty of credit.
Either way, I’m damn glad Taaffe is no longer in the game and wish the move was made much earlier.

What’s more of a “reach”
the assumption that a coach (that was fired almost halfway through the season )would have eventually got to playing the third QB if the team kept losing.
Or
The assumption Taaffe would NEVER had played him simply based on the fact that you hated Taaffe?

Forgetting the Casey-hate fest and how Wms. was nearly everybody’s favourite and Taaffe playing Wms. accordingly. Talk about convenient amnesia.

Zontar: You make no sense at all.
Also I did not "hate" Taafe. On the contrary I had a chat with him at Ivor Wynne earlier this season and have a photo of him and Ron Lancaster with my grandson. I thought he was a great guy and said that on this forum.
I just did not think,after 18 months on the job, he was the coach for the future and several times I explained why on this forum. Strictly a business appraisal. Turns out I was right. But this is all history now.

You're still wrong and still waiting for you to make your case.
You said Taaffe wanted "no part" of Porter.
Apart from you hating Taaffe what was that statement based on?
Question is quite clear.

zontar: Go bait someone else.

Stop dancing.
Answer the question. On what do you base the charge Taaffe wanting "no part" of Porter?

If I ever made such an exaggerated statement
as, 'Charlie wanted no part of Quinton Porter'

I would admit it was a bit 'over the top.'

When you don't admit that you might have
slipped up, the issue won't just go away.

You leave yourself in a box.

People will call you on it,

and what's worse people will place
less credibility in what you say.

Not that admitting that you exaggerated
would matter as far as I am concerned,mr 62

Taafe's name should be banned from this forum. Not one positive comment or post can be attached with the word Taafe.

zontar: OK…one last time.
Its obvious if you read my postings. :roll:

That’s what I thought. You have nothing.

zontar:

You need to apologize to safetyblitz for turning his thread into a vendetta.