Joe will never work in this town (league) again...

Apparently Brad Banks knew every play Joe was calling when we first played Win this year according to Leaf Peterson. Being a former backup under Paopao he noticed his play progression and signals were identical to what he used in Ottawa so he passed the info to the coaches who then knew exactly what we were running which lead to Eakin having the worst game a q.b could have and one of the worst displays of offence ever witnessed at Ivor Wynne. The stupid part is everyone in our locker room suspected something was up yet Ron and company decided to keep Joe. It was only until players started a mutiny that Ron had to finaly do something, then he goes and whines to Marcel as soon as he can about it. We shouldn't cut the players who got Joe fired, we should give them a raise and an extension, they did this franchise a huge favour for getting our TRUE slacker the hell out of dodge.

ah go soak yer head

Drexl: Good post! You're absolutely right.
I heard this story a couple of months ago, but had nothing to substantiate it, but now that it's out in the open, I find it unbelieveable that Paopao actually did this.

He put the Ti-Cats at one hell of a disadvantage and I'm glad he's gone.

I find it difficult to believe that at this level an OC would not think to change the signals at the very least.

:thup: :thup: Real good Post Drexl.

I too was told the story by a player and a lot more "sorry details" of the BS that was going on!

It will all come out eventually...from the players themselves! I'm sure we will get an "autopsy" on this season! The truth will come out!

its just rumour and lies that over time spread so that more poeple hear it and repeat it, but that doesnt make it truth.

Just to play devil's advocate ...

Most of us on this board have probably been to Ivor Wynne Stadium. Picture the sidelines where the players stand. From your recollection, how good would the sightlines be between the spot where Banks would have been standing and the spot where Paopao (or whoever sent in the signals) would have been standing?

Secondly, even if Banks could read the signals, how long would it take him to communicate those signals to his defensive teammates? (Remember, the defence sets their formation before the offence does.)

Third, does a set of hand signals even exist to convey ideas like "It's going to Flick deep" or "watch for the fake handoff and then the crossing pattern to Vaughn"?? Did they practice those signals that week or just improvise them on the spot?

Finally, I assume the plays that we sent in with a substitute rather than via hand signals would have been much more successful ... ? Especially when the D had grown accustomed to practically listening in on the huddle. (Funny, because I don't recall much success of any kind that game.)

People believe what they are predisposed to believe, but remember you have to get past all of the above if you believe this one.

(ExPat) Picture the sidelines where the players stand. From your recollection, how good would the sightlines be between the spot where Banks would have been standing and the spot where Paopao (or whoever sent in the signals) would have been standing?
The signals would be picked up in the spotter's booth and relayed to anyone on the sidelines wearing a headset. Very easy to do!

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't Paopao spend most of the first part of the season in the booth?? I think part of the reason Paopao may have difficulty finding work is that he runs a terrible offense that my 6 year old could figure out. I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I would think that having been around football so long he would have the smarts to change up signals. If people believe he deliberately sabotaged the team I have a question, Why?? That is career SUICIDE!! I think what it boils down to is that Paopao is a very nice man who was a much better player than a coach.

Well that's a different story. The official rumour was that it was Banks who knew the signals. Under the revised version, Banks would have taught his colleague in the spotter's booth all the appropriate signals in advance, in anticipation that Paopao hadn't changed them since last year.

Don't forget the controversy last year with Don Matthews allegedly videotaping coaches' signals. Hard to imagine any professional coach would use the exact same signals year after year.

Yeah, I think he went up to the booth after Ron started coaching, but the plays are signaled in from the third string q.b regardless of where he is.

Being a former backup under Paopao he noticed his play progression and signals were identical to what he used in Ottawa
Notice the term "play progression". In other words, Joe's going to call this on first, this on second, and they'll fake punt here, under these circumstances.

This is nothing sneaky, unless applied intellegence is a 15 yard penalty in the CFL.

You don't necessessarily need to know exactly which signals are for what play if you already know which play comes in his playbook for this situation.

I don't know why I keep defending Paopao here. I like to think it's more of a case of protecting "logic".

If the story is that Banks simply knows Paopao's tendencies ... well that's not exactly a novel idea. Don't you think every team in the league tries to learn the tendencies of other coaches and anticipate their moves? What do you think coaches are doing when they work 12+ hours per day, much of it in the film room? I would submit that they are looking at the next opponent's tendencies. Having a guy on your team who used to be a backup QB for the opposing coach is not exactly an unmatchable advantage.

Here's my alternative explanation: Winnipeg beat us so bad that game because they were a much better team at the time.

Yeah, the story wasn't that Banks was recognizing the signals, rather the plays they were running.
He would have relayed to the defense "if they're in this formation in this situation, look for this play", something like that.

[quote="ExPat"]Just to play devil's advocate ...

Third, does a set of hand signals even exist to convey ideas like "It's going to Flick deep" or "watch for the fake handoff and then the crossing pattern to Vaughn"?? Did they practice those signals that week or just improvise them on the spot?

I'm having a hard time believing this theory for 2 reasons:

  1. Joe never ran a play going deep to Flick

  2. Joe never ran a play fake handoff then crossing pattern to Vaughn.

The plays Joe ran were.

  1. pass to Peterson out in the flats-incomplete.

  2. 2nd&10 4-5 yard pass to whoever.

  3. Punt

Trailerparkboy: You got me there. Must have been some type of subconscious wishful thinking on my part.

Jerkfaceloser: I still say that "if they're in this formation in this situation, look for this play", is part of the preparation that every coach does for every game, and that the film evidence is equally as useful and probably more reliable than Banks' recollections. Besides, we beat them the next week using (presumably) the same play book, same formations.

Well then maybe what he recognized was a certain subset of plays being geared to the more inexperienced QB. Then with Maas back in the next week the playbook may have expanded a bit. Just conjecture on my part.
Anyway, the comment on TSN definitely sounded like it was the plays that Banks was recognizing, not the signals. Exactly how they used that information?...again just conjecture.