Is this is what is wrong with BC?

Saw the following in the National Post. Must admit that my jaw dropped when I saw the quote from Wally Buono that the reason that they would not go with two backs on the field is that the one back would not want to block for the other!!!!! Seems to me that BC has a lot of players that spell Team with an I, but what shocks me more is that they have a coach that seems to think it is ok!!

B. C. Lions coach Wally Buono might have a way to get import running backs Joe Smith and Stefan Logan in the lineup at the same time. Receiver Cory Rodgers ruptured an Achilles tendon in the Lions' 27-18 win over Winnipeg on Friday, opening up a spot for another import. And while the Lions have receiver Rufus Skillern on their reserve list, the Lions could decide to go with the two backs instead, although they still would not be in the backfield together. "Neither of them would want to block for the other," Buono said. "What we're talking about is the two of them on the roster at the same time." Smith was the league's premier back, with 1,510 yards rushing last year, but he has missed the last two games with a shoulder injury. In his absence, Logan has made the most of his chance, running for 217 yards. Now the Lions would like a way to utilize both threats. "It's something we're at least talking about," Buono said.
[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=668525]http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_pape ... ?id=668525[/url]

wally is not saying they wouldnt be willing, or that either one has said anything. He is just justifiably assuming that neither would like to be given the job of blocking for the other, anymore then any Qb likes to be the backup. Its all very understandable.

Sorry, but I do not buy it! Darian Durant has said all along that he expects Marcus to be the QB again when he is better. He understands that he has a team role to play?

When operating with a two back set, one is going to be carry the ball and the other is going to be blocking, thats how the play works!!!! If one of the RB does not like it well then he better be looking for another job, because he obviously does not understand that it is a team game!

durant expects it, but that doesnt mean he WANTS it that way. No body sets out to be satisfied with being the back up, and no running back sets out to be the blocking back for some one else.

In any case, so far, just wally's opinion. Nobody has said either player has expressed any unwillingness.

Just Wally's opinon? Ah he is their coach, is he not???? Seems to me what a coach thinks of his players has some importance! Now I agree that no one wants to be second fiddle, but its one thing for a coach to say that if he put both rb's in they would both want the ball on every play, but it is totally another to say that they would not support the other player.

Heck on every play receivers are pushing the QB to thrown them the ball, but I have never heard a coach say if x receiver got the ball the other receivers would not block for them!

but it is totally another to say that they [b]would not [/b]support the other player
thats just it. He did not say the WOULD NOT do it. He said, they would not WANT to. Super big difference.

We're trying to figure out what's in the mind of Joe Smith? Please.

Stop the Presses. Stop the Presses. Two highly competitive and efficient running backs would probably not enjoy being relegated to just blocking for the other. Big news scoop of the century. Stop the Presses.

OK, "want" it is. Please tell me what other players would not "want" to block for their team mates? Heck I have seen lots of receivers and RB make great blocks with lots of gusto! Can you imagine a coach saying, heck we will only go with one reciever because the other recievers do not want to block for him......

The simple fact is that Wally said he is taking a play off the table because some of this players do not WANT to play their expected role....

wally didnt say there was any decision being made either way. You are just being quick to assume. Either that or lacking comprehension. He just threw that comment out there as one thing he was considering. Didnt say how much wieght he gave it even.

Sheesh. Cant beleive I am defending Wally. I am not even a big fan of his. Go figure.

oh, and most recievers dont look forward to blocking, no matter how willing they may be to do it.

No running back wants to be a blocking back, it's like always coming in second place. He did not say they wouldn't do it, he said they didn't want it that way, which is perfectly natural.

Who wants to play second fiddle? It's not the same as a receiver where there are guys who get the ball more often, but they still do. A 2 back set it's almost always one guy who gets the ball all the time.

Who are these other players that you say spell team with an I? Stop making stuff up exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark.

I think Leeing's points are quite valid, Cates (starting running back) made a hugh block to spring Flick for a TD.... Dominguez (Receiver) makes a hugh block to spring Dressler would have been a TD if he hadn't pulled up lame.. still wound up a TD.

Its called team effort.

Why do you think no one took a sulking Bishop?

Hold up, nobody is saying you shouldn't block for your team.

It's apples and oranges to compare a RB throwing a block for a reciever or vice versa, and a guy being regulated to permanent blocking duty, which is what happens to the 2nd back in almost every case.

Uh so you think its ok for a coach to eliminate a possible play option because the feelings of the player might get hurt!

Seems to me that in the past Wally has been more than willing to go after players that do not play their part. Heck one of the reasons that Warren got the boot was his lack of blocking when DD got hit.

Anyway, take a look at what Wally says now, he is willing to platoon the RB’s (heck what player wants to be platooned) but he is unwilling to run a particular play because some players do not want to play their role…

I am sure that fullbacks would love to have the ball all the time, but they understand that their role is to block. Heck even RB’s roles are often to block on passing plays.

Logan isn't a fullback though. If he was I would agree with you. He's a RB, he was recruited as one, and as such he expects the ball.

You make it seem like they don't want to block at all, when it's about someone being put in a position they don't want to, nor may feel they are qualified to be in. I can't imagine Logan blocking for Smith full time, he's just not big enough.

To repeat, it's not about someone throwing a block, it's about putting someone in a completely difference position, like asking a DE to be a hog on the o-line.

bah. You simply cannot be reasoned with. You want to become a hater for something this insignificant, then so be it. Enjoy.

Clearly the author of this thread either does not follow the BC Lions or football very much for that matter to misinterpret Wally's quote like that. His quote makes perfect sense, your thread doesn't.

Much ado about nothing and I'm no fan of dir.... err, Wally Buono :wink: I could almost sense a bit of dry humour there.

LOL yes good Ole Dir@#$^% Wally he sure knows how to bring his team together LOL Throw a tuna in the locker room and who ever gets it wins. Smart man! LOL