Knee-jerk firings don't create best solutions

[url=] ... tions.html[/url]
And what about the Hamilton Tiger-Cats?

GM Bob O'Billovich decided it was the right time to make a change this past off-season and dump Marcel Bellefeuille in favour of George Cortez, a man hailed as an the offensive tactician who would lead the team to a new level of success.

Remember, Bellefeuille was the guy who took a 3-15 team, one entrenched in a losing culture, and developed an organization that expected to win. Bellefeuille had the Ticats knocking at the door of the Grey Cup the past two seasons.

But I guess it was the right time for change. I guess Cortez and quarterback Henry Burris was all that the team needed to win a Grey Cup. Yet the Ticats have stumbled to a 3-5 start.

Not sure Marcel's firing was a "knee-jerk" reaction.
He had three seasons to show if he could take the team to the next level.

He was so fantastic that he still holds a coaching position in the CFL. oh wait :lol:

He’s getting paid this year to not coach. He had one year left on his contract. I don’t get why people think that fired coaches should just jump at the first job offered to them. If you could get paid a couple hundred thousand dollars to be with your family and spend time with your kids, wouldn’t you take the time off?

In his first year he took the 3-15 team to the next level making them a 9-9 team.

That would be my dream

GM Bob O'Billovich decided it was the right time to make a change this past off-season and dump Marcel Bellefeuille

The reporter clearly needs to go back to grammar school :roll:

Perhaps I do too.

What's wrong with that?

If the change is to fire Bellefeuille, then you either have to conjugate the verb in the past tense ("and dumped") or else rephrase the sentence to use the present continuous ("to make a change this past off-season by dumping Marcel Bellefeuille"). It's not the worst syntax error I've ever seen TBH. In an age when professional writers don't seem to grasp how to use its and it's correctly, I'm inclined to let clunky syntax slide.

Oh, ok.

I read it as : "GM Bob O'Billovich decided it was the right time to" do two things:

  1. "make a change"...
  2. "dump Marcel Bellefeuille"

Same here. Essentially, I saw it as a shorter, equivalent way of writing "to make a change and to dump Marcel Bellefeuille" (note the second "to" in my version).

I wonder if deerhunter interrupts people while they are talking to him to correct their errors....

That's certainly plausible, except that if you're correct, what exactly is the change IF it's not firing Marcel? The construction of the sentence suggests that firing Marcel is itself the change.

I dunno, maybe the decision to make a change and to dump Bellefeuille were two different decisions.Just spit balling here.

Step 1 in decision process - make a change - not happy with 500 record yet again.
Step 2 in decision process - decide what that change will be ( can include several options)
(option 1) replace one or more co-ordiantors,
(option 2) replace one or more "big" players,
(option 3) replace HC,
(option 4) serve stronger drinks
(option 5) retire, promote Joe Womack to GM

Step 3 in decison process - go with option 3, replace HC.

But all that proves is that firing Marcel WAS the change. The mere fact of splitting decision-making and action into two phases doesn't mean that effecting the change is somehow separate from the idea.

I decide to make a change.
I decide that firing Marcel is that change.
I fire Marcel.
By firing him, I have moved from deciding to make a change to actually doing so.

Say what?

Cap'n: Not good enough:
9-9 in 2009. Lost semi final.
9-9 again in 2010 and lost the semi-final despite many player changes.
8-10 in 2011. Lost the eastern final.

   Does that make you feel as if we had the right HC for the future?
   I was rooting big-time for Marcel but I think he had enough time to show what he could do.
   I am also rooting for George Cortez and do not want to think about the consequences if he can't improve on Marcel's record over three seasons.