Mandatory reading for Ron Lancaster Bashers

I said before I am at most practices
and I saw no interaction between Greg
and Ronnie right from the beginning.

Any Ronnie Basher with facts
to dispute what tcr14 says

speak now or forever hold your peace.

And I mean F-A-C-T-S ~!!

Thanks - always great to know the facts - Ronnie is the all-time greatest football legend and mind - don't anyone dare question this CFL icon again.

I really don't care what you 2 say. Ron Lancaster is past is best before date IMO and needs to go. As a matter of fact those statements re-enforce my opinion that he has nothing to offer as it would appear that he can no longer communicate. Was Marshall totally at fault or was Lancaster totally at fault for the lack of exchange as you allege. Probably no to both. At any rate only a complete purge of staff is acceptable if we want to get back to winning. Sports is a tough business and there is little room for sentimentality. The Lancaster boosters suffer greatly from thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. Likewise with those that slam Lancaster with inaccurate accusations. Both sides on this board are so fixed in their own agendas in every subject that frankly I'm not even certain that they are reading each others posts before replying

I don't really care to expose the source of my comments on Ron's lack of use of good Cdn talent in Saskatchewan, Edmonton or Hamilton, but assure you its pretty "solid", let alone "inside" on who gets drafted and hired, and who doesn't.

Your opinion is your own.

Respect my "right" to mine.

I can understand that in Hamilton, his hands were pretty much tied, as he was paying the big bucks to Danny Mac and Darren (and, of course, himself)and this would lead to a great deal of issues, given the lame leadership and the fan fickleness, but I digress.

Your jumping from RL the QB in 1969 to RL the coach in 1999 shows a huge "hole" in your story might try filling it in with some sorry facts!

The last thing we need for the TiCats in 2007 is some "apologist" we need to re-hire Ronnie if Taffe fails or DesJardins' initial moves crumble? Or a new "Director of Player Personnel"?

I'm not really going to enter this debate except to say if I was in Greg Marshall's shoes with a legend, and no one will dispute the fact that Ron Lancaster is a CFL legend, it would make me just a tad wee bit uncomfortable if Ron was aloof with me as head coach and wasn't communicative regardless of his role with the organization, just him being on the field observing would make me nervous, a bit too nervous to get the best out of me as a coach I think. Marshall was in one heck of a tough position I think right from the beginning if Ron, and I don't know if he is but I think he is, an aloof type person with his legendary status. I see something working where you have someone who has been around the block much, much more than Marshall for this to work with Ronnie being around. However, if Marshall didn't ask Ronnie for ideas and try and open a dialogue, Marshall's fault and bye, bye then. What was Ronnie supposed to do, go right up and open the lines of communication up so it looked like he was interfering? Ron wouldn't want to do this.

I hope I'm not coming across as a Lancaster basher because I'm not, I have his CFL Hall of Fame card in my basement up front and centre.

BTW, I see these communication issues at work and in family all the time. Very difficult sometimes and unfortunately even if you are theoretical mathematician, this doesn't help much when it comes to social issue logistics like communication I don't think. Reading my post I see glaring inconsistencies with my thought process, although I am not a theoretical mathematician, maybe a theoretical beer making technician though, just made a batch yesterday!! :wink:

So let me see if I understand the argument. The mere presence of a true football legend in the organization - rather than being an invaluable resource to a young coach - is in fact an unbearable burden and barrier to success.

Carrying this through to its logical extension, I assume that explains the dismal string of failures experienced by the Edmonton Eskimos over the past 20 years with someone like Hugh Campbell running things.

Earl you're a hoot today, I don't even want to strangle you... as for Ron, I know men who are great leaders and every so often they end up with an horrible paradox where they are asked to deliver a team, group or whatever the way they have in the past.
The problem is that they really want to do it for the fans and supporters who respect them also the ego and the rage against aging comes into play. So they take it on... and it can really be a pinball(not Clemons!) of motivation and sitting on your laurels.
Lancaster is a fascinating character and I for one don't think you can predict his future success or failure but I will be in his corner the whole way.
All the best, GO BLUE!!!

billy, ok, you don't want to strangle me, and this is good I think, as long as what you might want to do with me isn't as bad as a strangulation!!
Good point about them wanting to do it for the fans and supporters, very true for sure.

So let me see if I understand the argument. The mere presence of a true football legend in the organization - rather than being an invaluable resource to a young coach - is in fact an unbearable burden and barrier to success.

Ex-Pat, maybe can be an unbearable burden for some people depending on the circumstances and people involved.


That was a great post and wonderful contribution to the Lancaster discussion.

Great respect for what Ron has done over many many years. However, it is time for him to retire.
New blood, and new thinking is what the Ti-Cats need.

Re coach Marshall- TiCats fired him as the team went 0 &4- But they could have been 2&2 at least if they had a few penalty calls go their way. AND they should have dumped PaoPao, NOT Marshall-IMHO!

Well if you know all about his decisions in Sask, Edmonton and Hamilton, you know a person who was in all those organizations spanning from 1979-2003, wow thats a long time, so it must have been Ronnie himself that told you this info. and in that loop hole that you talked about in Edmonton, 91 First place west, 92 second, 93 grey cup champs, 94 second, 95 second, 96 grey cup game, 97 first. you shouldnt have brought that up that just supports lancaster. As for himself and Danny and Darren being the problem with the money, are you an idiot, none of them made the most at there position, and Lancaster didnt make nearly the same as marshall. And there must have been a huge problem with the leadership in 98-2001, when they nucleus was there and they won. And the fan fickleness, in 98,99, when they won the cup or went you all average under 20 a game. Obviously it wasnt the atmosphere it is now but you guys were winning.

Exactly! I have a great respect for Ron and what he has done in the past, and I say hello when I see him around town. But he is almost 70 years old, he doesn't need to work. If the team wants to maintain a relationship with him, make it a team/community ambassador role or some sort of ceremonial title.

Amen Paullywood and SJ

Ummmm just a question for you Lancaster bashers.
Were you bashing him when we went to those 2 greycups?
Remember the only reason he coached last year was because no one ele would...
Give your head a shake and show a legend some respect.

No offense, but I am not sure where you thought I was jumping. Here I will fill in the hole that you thought I left. Lancaster quit playing football after a 19 year career. He took over the Saskatchewan Roughriders in 1979 and 1980. I know that Lancaster did not do so well in his two years in Saskatchewan, but he did build an offensive line that was second to none in the early 1980’s. And guess what he used Canadians to do it. Being a Rider season ticket holder from 1963 I saw his use of Canadians. From 1981 to 1990, he was with CBC, so not sure how he was not using Canadians at that point in his career. Now on to Edmonton where he had the tandum on Michael Soles and Blake Marshall, plus an all Canadian oline. Sorry but get your facts straight. As for who was drafted and who wasn’t, unless you were in what is called the war room, with the coaches for all the teams he has coached, then I would say you opinion may be off. The only person that would have been in all three war rooms (Saskatchewan, Edmonton, and Hamilton) would have to be Lancaster himself. And I am sure Lancaster himself would admit that there were a few Canadians he should have drafted, but as all teams do they go into the draft with a plan, they draft players that they need. They do not draft players just because the home town fans think they should be drafted. And the drafting decision is not just the HC decision. It involves the GM, HC and the Head Scout.

As for the salaries that were paid to the three you mentioned, how is it that you know their salaries? Are you from the inside? The last time I checked CFL salaries were confidential.

No offense taken.

The coaching years in Saskatchewan were the worst performance of his career, and I guess I'm still rather bitter about that, as we have certainly attended some of the same games.

In that period, he failed to pick up some really great talent that was available (remember, that you are looking at this from a "Buyers" viewpoint; there are also "sellers" that are just as deeply involved in Football)(and superbly informed)

Can recall Saskatchewan drafting Rueben Mayes first choice, because he came from North Battleford, even if he would up being drafted by New Orleans, and of course playing there for the big money until injured and disappearing from sight.

Anyways, of the periods you mention, I was close friends with an executive of one of the sources of supply of draftable players in Canada, who stated then, and still holds out today that Ron did not want Canucks for anything beyond OLine jobs, and had few friends in the USA ranks for bringing in "emergency replacements" when such were required.

Hugh Campbell was quite the opposite, BTW.

Can we agree to disagree?

I don't want to slur what Ron has done in the CFL, or have it thought I don't respect the man...its just he has made some bad mistakes along the way, right back to calling the plays in the huddle.

Is it possible to want a clean break with the past without being smeared as a Lancaster basher? And what do two Grey Cups in the late 90's have to do with 2007 anyway?

Few if any of us really know, by any objective measure, how much contribution Ron made in recent years, but I wonder why his contribution is beyond analysis much less criticism. When an organization has made so many bad decisions and underperformed expectations so badly, I don't like the idea that there are ANY sacred cows on the management team.

If the powers that be bring Ron back based on the team's current needs and his recent performance, I can live with that, but don't try to justify bringing him back because of his accomplishments as a coach seven or eight years ago, or his accomplishments as a player decades ago, or even because he took one for the team by coaching last year.

I left these two quotes because I would like to comment on them.
The first one states that you are friends with a guy who supplies Canadians to the draft. The only problem I have with that is, he was not happy that some of the players were not drafted. Did he ever sit down and discuss this with Ron? Because I can guarantee you that if he ever did he would know that Lancaster has respect for the Canadian players. I know this because of my friends that have worked with Lancaster and the dicussions we have had.

As for friends in the states, Lancaster has many. But you also have to remember that Lancaster was never on the scouting side. When Lancaster was GM and coach he had McCarthy and another guy (sorry but his name escapes me at this moment) doing the leg work. I do know from my friends that there were times Lancaster would mention a player only to be told by his scouts that the playe he mentioned was not really that great. And on some occasions that player would be picked up by a different team and be pretty good.

You state in the second part that Lancaster has made some mistakes along the way. What coach or team hasn’t. That is the nature of the business. Players and coaches would not be in the game if they were not willing to take a gamble. How many of us in our secure jobs would be willing to work in a business that any day you can be fired? That at the end of the year you don’t know if you have a job or not? That you job doesn’t only depend on how well you do your job, but how well 50 - 60 other people do their jobs?

But I can agree to disagree.

With respect, the entire point of most of the people who are calling for the removal of Lancaster is that he isn't contributing TODAY. What he did in the past has little relevance on that. I am not bashing Lancaster and his past contributions (although his record is hardly without blemish and his handling of the QB position has been particularly injurious to the Ticats) but rather trying to say that he is no longer making positive contributions