Now if I said this

I don't think anyone is suggesting blowing up the team. The team is more or less fine with a few more tweaks. The suggestion is to surgically remove the coach while creating as little disruption as possible. I don't think changing the head coach is as big a deal as many here think. You've still got the playbook (as weak as it is) still the same coordinators...
What we need is a coach who will tell the coordinators to come back with a better plan of approach... I don't get the feeling that is happening now and if it is, It's all the more reason to change the head coach because what they are coming back with is not working.

IT is if you want to continue winning games!
It’s time for someone else to make the calls
We have a good team that can win right now! We
need the staff to push them.

I don’t judge Charlie by watching his body language
and facial expressions on the sidelines, tcfan.

I try to be more objective.

IMO, and Steve’s opinion they played
hard for Charlie last season.

Despite their lousy record last year, he didn't lose the club,

or its veteran leadership.


IMO, and Steve’s opinion they are
still playing hard for Charlie.

...except for the first Montreal game and a short-week debacle in Calgary,

this club has been in every game.


I can vouch for this below. too,
I am at practices most days.

There is a solid work ethic, the team practices well every day...
It's pretty hard for a new football coach to inspire immediate results, tcfan.

Football involves 3 units of twelve players
with vastly different skill sets to deal with.

Too many players and different systems
for one man to quickly assess and motivate.

P.S.

In other sports midseason changes
have occasionally worked temporarily.

Hockey has three units of six players
with the same skill sets and one system.

Basketball and baseball are similar.

You must be drinking the same potient as Charlie, I am afraid.
Regarding the article -
"In the interest of stability, and continuing the new-growth process they began last year, the Eskimos retained Maciocia despite the howling of the locals, which was much louder there than it is here.

And look who’s the surprise team of the entire CFL."
.
Yes - this is all accurate. But even Maciocia would not have punted with 6 inches to go.
The bonehead coaching decisions, game after game, is TAFFE’s responsibility. It has NOTHING to do with the players.
EVEN a bad Team can win if the coaching is good.
And this coaching, top to bottom, is NOT good at all.
.
I predicted at the beginning of the season, that we will be 5-13. At 2-7, we are in pace to reach that mark.
But I am very afraid, that EVEN a 5-13 is too optomistic.
.
Say what you will - I stand by my posts…

:cowboy: :cowboy: :cowboy:
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Now if I said this Posted: Sep 03, 2008 - 03:15 AM

Joined: Jul 02, 2007
Posts: 502

Status: Offline
I don’t think anyone is suggesting blowing up the team. The team is more or less fine with a few more tweaks. The suggestion is to surgically remove the coach while creating as little disruption as possible. I don’t think changing the head coach is as big a deal as many here think. You’ve still got the playbook (as weak as it is) still the same coordinators…


What if, like me, you think the coordinators are just as much to blame, if not more, than the Charlie?

I guess the right circumstance would be a losing season for a team that has been at the bottom for several years now, along with being the teams 4th head in as many years. Only to take take a step back next season when a new head coach comes in?

I can see Obie’s offseason conversation with the new head coach. “You have full control of the coaching staff, except you have to find a place for Danny.”

No we don’t.

A good team does not get stuffed on third down repeatedly and especially when the game is on the line.

And some wonder why Charlie chose to punt early in the game in our own end.

This is a work in progress.

A great article by a great writer... nothing else can be said.

If I may respectfully break off your post right there, HfxTC,

and ask, who do you claim set up Steve Milton
to support management and do damage control?

Scott Mitchell? Obie?

and which user name did Scott or Obie use
to shoot down every negative fans opinion

by claiming the poster knows nothing
because he’s not “part” of the team.

and in which thread is this being done

because I sure as @%& don’t see
any of this in this thread, HfxTC.

Even the worst team’s in the league should be able
to get one yard or less. Only bad call’s prevent that from happening.
when you say "work in progress’ you must be talking
about the coaching staff.

Difffering and varying opinions and views are not always deep lurking conspiracies.

Are they?

Now there’s an odd direction for this thread to go. If you think Taffe is laid back, wait till you see McManus. No offense to Danny, but he’s not exactly known for the clipboard throwing, thunder and lightning stuff that some people seem to want from Taffe.

Even the worst team's in the league should be able to get one yard or less. Only bad call's prevent that from happening. when you say "work in progress' you must be talking about the coaching staff.
I guess teams go for it 100% of the time on 3rd and 1.

Forgive, me but I don’t get this obsession with that call. (and I must say, that given the 6 inches, I would have gone for it too)

And even though I would have made a different call, it’s still plain and simple to me why he called what he called.

This team has been stuffed several times on 3rd down. Did anyone notice that failed third down gamble near the end of the game? Ya think Charlie may know something?

Again, I would have went for it too, but I think the team’s performance proves that it was not a boneheaded coaching decision.

I'm not interested in clipboard throwing,
thunder and lightning stuff, just good
solid decision making from a 5000 yard QB
who acks to win all the time. As a QB he
even gave coaches hell for some of their play calling. (if you remember)

Sure, it includes the coaching staff. It includes the entire team.

Obviously this debate can and will go on, and people will vent and express all kinds of opinions, but I really think the suggestion that a favourable article by Steve Milton can be "bought" for a lunch, or indeed for anything else, is way off the mark and an insult to his professionalism as a journalist. You may or may not agree with his opinion on this subject (I happen to agree but that is just my view), but casting aspersions on his integrity adds nothing to the conversation.

Perhaps it isn't surprising given our won-lost record, but this seems to be very much in line with some of the much too personal attacks on our coaching staff and others that have peppered this forum for a while now. They aren't morons, buffoons, fools, or any of the other epithets thrown at them. They're professional people working hard and exhibiting quite a lot of good grace. Fortunately, they probably don't read these forums much anyway; I certainly hope not--they have far more important things to do.

A post like the one casting apersions on Milton speaks more to the poster than it does to Steve Milton.

CaptainKirk, I just want to be clear what you mean. Are you agreeing with me and adding to my comment, or do you feel I should not have made this observation about what a previous poster said?

I agree with you 100%

I apoligise for not being clear and my post has been edited to fix that.