Mr. Tillman; what went wrong with Brian Jones?

Hope it's Mo!!

To speak generically. No matter WHO the poster is, wrongly presented facts need to be corrected. If any poster is going off memory it is a simple fix, mention in the post that one is going off memory and this is how the person recollects it. I don't think anyone will take offense to that. Then if ANYONE makes a mistake and is corrected, fair enough. This thread is full of over-reactions to a simple mistake but a mistake that can be fixed in the future by just saying the truth. [i.e - I may be mis-remembering but it seems to me the trade went down like this]. I know thats what I do. :rockin:

What did we learn about the Jones trade as correctly stated that we didn't already know after ET answered the question based on his recollection? And even if a small nugget of information was gleaned, is it worth all the wrangling? There are people like you in my profession - they argue every last point of an agreement as though it was the first and biggest, even if there is no difference or benefit to their position - they end up spending tons of time (and money) to gain very little.

And I do believe Eric does a pretty masterful job of spin. But I don't think it is subterfuge, or that there is any great conspiracy to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I just think Eric would make a brilliant politician, or even better, the politician's friend, the spin doctor. And that means things he says and does need to be challenged.
You spin things too, by the way you post things. You could have simply said this: "Actually, if Wikipedia is correct, the trade was thus and so, although, either way, we are in agreement that it was a stinker. Thanks for being honest about that, and the backstory on Jones." What was to be gained by the hyper-analysis you put it through?
If no one challenges him on anything, frankly, none of you truly learn anything. ET says he is trying to answer the "why we do things". That's all I want to know myself. I already know pretty much the what, when, where and who of most of these things. 97% of what he has posted is available elsewhere if you look. Very little is new.
I would agree. So if both you and ET can find the who, what, when, etc., and both of you are smart enough to know that each of you can find all of this stuff, what's the point of challenging an imperfect recollection? You're not relying on him for the bare facts. If it doesn't change the result of the story, is it really worth dissecting? Had he said "the trade looks bad, but we got a first round pick back, so we made out okay"....then you'd be perfectly entitled to go at it both barrels. But we're now debating whether this was an 8 or a 8.5 on the trade gross-o-meter. Who cares?
And most of the new stuff, I believe, has actually come because of the agitators--Zbest, Mike and myself.
That's delusional. The only reason you might think that is because of the three of you badgering to the point that no one else could get a word in edgewise. You've stunted conversations, because nothing would ever get left alone. With limited time to answer questions, instead of a Q&A of 10 topics, we've had microanalysis on one, often to the point where you/Mike were the only ones who still cared.
Mike got banned because he is an ass. Not because he was asking questions.
There's no doubt about that. And on most days I'd never compare you to him. But you have gone a little goofy on a couple of recent threads.

[ quote] If we left the forum to the lapdogs that have magically followed Eric to this forum, we wouldn't learn a bloody thing.
I don't know who's followed ET here, nor do I care. But I'm no lapdog for refusing to hold someone to a standard of memory/consistency that I wouldn't expect in my professional life. And I don't feel I'm entitled to criticize a man in a profession I have not spent a second in as though I were an equal. I'm not. Nor are you. Neither of us know enough about the job to be judgmental and taken seriously. Asking hard questions, again, is not the same as communicating from a position of apparent superiority. I think sometimes you cross that line.

My two cents, anyway....

For those keeping score, the Brian Jones trade looked like:

To Montreal:
Adrian McPherson ( via neg list ) -- speculative
OL Ryan Karhut
OL Gurminder Thind ( via 4th round )
LB Shea Emery ( via 1st round )

To Sask:
OL Brian Jones
RB/SB Henri Childs
LB Jason Arakgi ( via 3rd round ) -- draft pick dealt to BC

But with the BC deal:
To BC:
TBD ( via 2009 1st round )
LB Jason Arakgi ( via 3rd round )

To Sask:
DE Michael Stadnyk ( via 2nd round )
OL Jean-Francois Morin Roberge ( via 4th round )

I won't elaborate further than this, so don't press: Mikejth was not banned due to nitpicking.

I don't know who's followed ET here, nor do I care. But I'm no lapdog for refusing to hold someone to a standard of memory/consistency that I wouldn't expect in my professional life. And I don't feel I'm entitled to criticize a man in a profession I have not spent a second in as though I were an equal. I'm not. Nor are you. Neither of us know enough about the job to be judgmental and taken seriously. Asking hard questions, again, is not the same as communicating from a position of apparent superiority. I think sometimes you cross that line.

My two cents, anyway....
And I always pay attention to your 2 cents Artie, as you are certainly one of the best posters on the entire forum--not just the Rider forum. So obviously, no...I was not referring to you in referencing the "lapdogs". I was however referring to at least two posters who have only joined since ET came here and who as far as I am concerned have done nothing but drag the level of debate down. With any luck, they were banned as well....
I did perhaps get a little testy on the one thread, which was began by, in my estimation, one of the "least knowledgeable fans" or at minimum, most annoying fans, on the forum. A guy known for his vicious and slanderous attacks on the previous regime and his disrespect for anyone who disagrees. And his opening post was, thinly disguised as asking ET questions, just another such attack. Which is where the entire Clermont issue arose. And when I defended ET and all GMs on that type of thing, ET decided to be personally offended. I thought that was weird, but maybe that's just me. But since then, I believe as soon as ET sees my name, he stops reading and just assumes. And that is annoying.
Everyone spins things. And ET actually gets paid to spin things. Part of the job. But then when people notice the spin, one really needs to have a little thicker skin. When I spin something, usually it is with a purpose--sometimes subconscious, but certainly not always--to push the envelope, play devils advocate, etc. But I try not to spin otherwise. I enjoy a good debate. ET isn't wrong about that. And as this is not "The Happy to be Green Show" I don't actually see the need to treat ET any differently than any other poster. Except for the possibility that I think in many ways, particular his demeanor, he should be held to an even higher standard than the average poster, because he has come on this forum acting as a representative for the football team. Not as a fan, or average poster. Which of course would have been difficult to do. But at the same time, this is an open forum, not a controlled media scrum or a personal blog. And in fact he has chosen to not merely take questions and give answers but rather to fully engage in debates. As he himself has stated a few times now, "oh the fool that he is for doing this". But it is completely at his discretion to do so.
As for me "taking over" a given conversation, I actually often wait long periods of time before responding. And given the length of some of my responses, people usually have ample time to "get a word in". And I have completely avoided a few topics.
As for the specifics of the Brian Jones trade, what changed because I said some things? Well first off, I see no reason not to point out factual inconsistencies--ET or not. But moreover, while ET did concede the trade wasn't a good one, he also said it might still work out if Roberge pans out. The issue was not, as ET suggests, whether it was a 3rd rounder or a 4th rounder, but rather that Roberge had NOTHING to do with the Brian Jones trade. So if we are to glean insight into that deal, shouldn't we know that much to begin? But you are correct--what ET had to say didn't radically change because the facts were now correct. But I think anyone reading what ET had to say might have a different or hopefully better understanding with all the information available. Oxbow for example, another terrific poster, who seemed to have the wrong impression as to why ET felt the trade was not a good one.

Fair enough. My only point, and not to unduly belabour it, is this: there is a marked difference in tone between the last paragraph of your above post, and the one that prompted a scroller of my own. It's less - I don't know, confrontational? Maybe that's not the exact word, but it's in the ballpark. I take far less issue with your content (which is usually accurate), or your opinions (which are equally likely to be well-reasoned), as with the style in which they are presented. If that makes any sense.

As for the one smoochie-smooch thread - I think anyone could spot that drivel for what it was, and you are probably not alone in your thoughts on its author. If memory serves, I've had my tussles there as well.

I will disagree with you on whether ET gets treated differently than any other poster. He should. Why? First, he knows. We're just a bunch of internet dingbats, who like to pontificate about all manner of football things that we know next to nothing about. This guy is in a little different class than that. Which was a point I made rather crudely in another thread - we can rip each other up over our opinions, because they're really not based on alot, and certainly not grounded in much personal knowledge. His opinion is a little different, and ought to be given a bit more weight and deference.

Second of all, he adds a unique and genuine value to the forum - he's a voice from the inside, giving us details we'd never actually get on here. The rest of us - let's be honest, any one or six of us could be insulted, get mad and leave and this place would run more or less identically after our departure. Some new wingnut would take our place and that would be that. We'd be appreciably worse off if the same thing happened with Eric, and for that, again, I'm willing to extend a little more deference. Not that total agreement is necessary at all times. But, an appreciation for the opportunity we've been given. Yes he comes here voluntarily, but it's really solely for our benefit. So I think it is appropriate that people communicate with ET a little differently than they might RW05, or RLR, or Turkeybend - he's in a little different place than any of those.

Anyway, glad you didn't take my rant personally - and I hope ET stays long enough to see more of that other side of you that I've always valued on here.

Zbest, you must be a lot smarter than I am, or have more research time...or both!!! LOL

Thind did not play his senior season (injury), and, from what I understand, will not attempt to play professionally.

Ryan Karhut spent some time on the Als practice roster last year, and, I think, has been re-signed for this season.

MacPherson's rights were traded to Montreal at some point. We had serious concerns about him getting in the country, although, from what I hear, he is a young man who has put some of the "challenges" from the past behind him. And, good for him in doing so. It's always good when young people find their way in life!!!

Stadnyk, was a first round talent in our view. For those who may not know, he (and we expected) went back to Montana, where he started for a third consecutive season. Michael grew up in Regina, and we hope to sign him after the NFL draft. If so, we fully expect him to hav a long and very productive career in his home province.

Anything more? Hey, ask Zbest. :smiley:

I never really heard of Adrian McPherson till this thread. The poor kid has had his problems in the past.

"Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions..." (Psalm 25:7)

Some of it is just plain bad luck. Who gets hit by the other teams mascot driving a golf cart? Speaking of which, doesn't Gainer have a moped or something now? Look out Ricky Ray.....

Managing the semi-pro prospect market -- I sure hope you're better at it than I am, considering it's one of the core aspects of your job. But, sometimes it's interesting to put a name to that draft pick to go back and re-evaluate a trade ( who is Toronto going to end up getting for Michael Bishop? )

I can see how you dropped some of those other prospects from the trade, but I had some time to kill and figured I'd clear the air. (That BC trade could make up for the failings of the Montreal trade -- depending how both those guys turn out, as they're all still prospects at this point)

I was at Ivor Wynne a few years back when TC (the mascot) nailed an official (I think the side judge) while ZOOMING down the sideline on a three-wheeler. Honestly, it was amazing the poor guy wasn't seriously hurt.

And, Oxbow, thanks for posting that IS profound in a society where we are too quick to judge others, and often too slow to forgive ourselves!!!

I think all ET was saying in the first place is...

CFL GM's differentiate priorities when performing their job, because they simply don't have the time to do everything they have to do while being mindful of the exact facts or scenarios. He'd excuse himself for his mistake and move on because whats really important to him and the club he manages might slip to the backburner otherwise. It's not life or death anyways guys, just take it easy and take care.

You are right, Scribe. I don't expect ET or anyone to necessarily have total recall all the time. However, and given ET's current situation, this is a pretty big HOWEVER, it is pertinent that ET tells us all his little anecdotal stories about what happened in the Fred Perry story, or the Jason Armstead story, or the Kerry Joseph story, and we are expected to believe he does have total recall, and that his version of events is in fact 100% the truth. And he repeats that IT'S THE TRUTH slogan a lot. So when he tells a story that is verifiable by the facts and as soon as it is shown that he is in fact fallible and his version is not necessarily always 100% THE TRUTH, we get the old, "well nobodies perfect, but who cares anyway" routine. You really can't have it both ways. I just hope his "human fallibility" isn't about to bite him in the ass.... THAT would be a case of assault!