Its pretty simple to understand Mike. WE HAD SALARY TO CUT FOR THE LONG TERM BENEFIT OF THE FOOTBALL CLUB!!! We won the GREY CUP man … YAY!!! You said it well when you said we traded an MOP QB got a backup D-lineman. We traded a great D-lineman, and got a backup QB. THATS HOW YOU CUT MONEY MAN! JUST CHILL OUT BEFORE YOU RUN OUT OF FEET TO PUT IN YOUR MOUTH IF WE DO GET SOME BOUNCES IN 08’.
kel
Regardless of whether you agree with the KJ/Perry trades or not, it seems pretty tough to take the position that those trades have not weakened the team at two key positions. Now if Perry had been hit by a bus, and KJ was driving, so was going to jail, I guess we would still need to replace them. Change happens. But if the bus thing had occurred, and ET had signed the players he has, such as Hicks, and I said we have an obvious weakness at DE to fill because Perry was missing, Austin doesn't say boo about it. Only because it offends his sense that ET is somehow godlike does it rankle his nose. Which makes little to no sense. Either we have a weakness at the DE position because Perry is gone, or we don't. It is irrelevent why he is no longer there at this time, or if we have Flemons. Because we also have several other guys at that position and one of them will play. But the odds of any of them playing as well as Fred Perry played the last two years is not very high. Simple.
The "wait and see if the trade works out" argument is simply a dead issue. The trade is over. Done. Get over it. It simply has no impact when looking at the team we do have, today, and upon doing so, anyone in assessing our prospects of winning this season will look at the D-line and say, heading into TC, "Riders have a notable hole to fill". Flemons could be the 2nd coming. But right now, nobody knows that--not Ken Miller, not ET, nobody--well maybe the ACTUAL JC does know. Frankly, while not all that familiar with Flemons (as Austin likes to remind everyone), I have seen Kitwana Jones and Mitchell play, and I like both those guys. And the 2-3 other guys we have signed at DE all have as good a pedigree as Mr. Flemons, so lets not rule them out. And the fact that we do have several guys coming to camp that can play DE leads me to conclude that even the lord and master, Eric Tillman would concede the DE position is a concern headed to TC--or why is he signing so many players that will compete at that position? And Flemons may need to make the team at tackle.
On the flip side, we have not signed a ton of import o-linemen, so one might conclude that, if we play an import at that position, it will be January. We do have a couple of guys from last year, but unless I missed them, we haven't signed any new o-linemen. But while I don't see January as necessarily an upgrade over Jones, Jones was not so good last year that he can't be easily replaced. So you won't see me stating we have a "glaring and obvious weakness at tackle". The entire o-line needs to play better than they did last year. But a healthy Geno, combined with a year together (except for January--or whomever) should overall make them better. If January is solid, we'll be fine there. Or maybe we go all-Canadian--Chris Best wins the job, or Morley. That is how you honestly assess the o-line headed to TC. Again, at this time, it is irrelevent how we got January. The only thing that is important is THAT WE DO HAVE HIM. So I'll judge him the way I judge any unknown product. I expect him to play, and do a good job. It isn't any different than judging another area of concern--receiver. Yo is gone, Matt, god love him, is a question mark, and we never did have that 4th receiver last year anyway, so it is an obvious area of concern. That has nothing to do with the trade, so if I say we have a "glaring weakness at that position", then what? Because we do. And so we have signed several receivers. Assessing the trade is simply another issue altogether. And I can separate out those two very different issues. The trade su.cks. It will continue to su.ck long after January and Flemons are in the hall of fame. But in the meantime, it is pre-training camp, and considering our chances based upon the players WE HAVE, rather than the players WE ONCE HAD, is the only game in town....
And as a side note, Mike, we did in fact get Toronto's 1st round pick in the trade......can't believe people let you slide on that one...
Austin, I'm just going to throw this one out there. I don't think anyone said we had a glarring hole in our d-line with the loss of Nate Davis. Davis was only good for a quarter of the plays, then got too tired. He needed to get into better shape, but didn't and as a result in my opinion wasn't that good. You can't compare the loss of Nate Davis to the loss of Fred Perry. There is no doubt that nobody saw John Chick as having the impact he did last year during training camp (except me I personally liked the way he played in TC). Tillman has been known to make some brutal trades as well because he was so high on a player. Take for instance what we gave up for Henri Childs, wasn't it a first rounder? Henri was terrible. Don't get so high on a player just because Tillman is high on a player. Wait and see. I don't think we will be terrible this year, but we definitly won't be great either.
Arius you are right, I went back and looked at the press releases. One says 1st and 3rd round and the says a 1st and 2nd round. I missed the 1st round ones. That was my mistake for just skiming the article.
[url=http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=newser&func=display&topicnum=&nid=23135&writer=0]http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=news ... 5&writer=0[/url] [url=http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=newser&func=display&topicnum=&nid=23125&writer=0]http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=news ... 5&writer=0[/url]No problem Mike. The draft pick aspect of the trade was a 1st rounder, and we swapped a 2nd rounder for a 3rd, or some such. I was just looking at the "CFL Canadian Draft tracker" for 2008, and I can't figure it out...but the 1st rounder for sure...
Anyway, about Nate. Poor example if you are trying to build the ET mystique.... ET brought exactly 0 guys to camp last year that could compete for that job.
I loved Nate Davis. One of my favourite players. But he always had a weight/conditioning issue, and those things catch up to you as you get older. Nate was a monster, an all-star at his position, but definately had lost a step by 2006. Rumour has it, Roy never intended to bring Nate back another year, even had Roy himself not been fired. And I think the reasons are obvious. Nate may have lost the job even in 2006, but when you hang your GM and coach out to dry with a "win now, or you are gone" ultimatum, a veteran like Nate isn't likely to get replaced. Though ET did try to convince DB to bring in whatshisfatbutt mid season, but DB said no.
Good decision by the way.
But Nate got old. Chunky played pretty well last year, but it would be a mistake to claim we "replaced Nate". We did not. The d-line was not as effective with Marcus and Chick as it had been in 2006 with Jurineak and Nate. I am a big Chick fan. I agree the potential was apparent in TC. But the reality is, he did not win the starting job at that point. Jurineak was the starter--but he got hurt. So we played Kitwana ahead of Chick in game one. Then John stepped in, and played pretty well. Later, he was actually sat down in favour of Mitchell. Now he may have been dinged up, but the fact is, he was benched. Had Mitchell not then been injured, Chick may still be riding the bench. It is just the way things happen. John Chick played 3 monster games for us in the play-offs. So now everyone is on the bandwagon--not just me and greenandwhite. He is #1 on the depth chart for certain. But he will need to replicate his play-off performances for an entire season. No reason to think he cannot. But no one "knows". He is largely still an unknown quantity. Maybe his stamina will be impacted by his diabetes. Maybe he is a one hit wonder. Time will tell. But extrapolating finding one, count 'em one rookie player last year who can play and start, into suddenly evey player we sign will be an impact player seems a bit of a stretch. DEs are not hard to find. Or tackles. Quality ones like Nate and Fred however are. We did not match Nate's onfield presence last year. Let's hope we can at least get close to matching Fred's this year....meanwhile, the search to "replace" Nate Davis continues....
No one knows how these players will play this season. All of us are just guessing.
John Chick was a rookie last year and generally, although not always the case, players play better in their second season.
Glen January was the best lineman on the Argos last year according to both the TSN and CBC Colour folks and they probably know more about the game than any of us. To be called the best lineman on a team that has Chad Folk is quite a compliment I think.
I am confident that the 'riders are set in those two positions.
It will be fun to see who starts in place of Fred Perry, and Reggie Hunt. Personally, I fine that scenario intriguing. The 'riders have a history of being able to replace veterans who played defense with good young players and I think the trend will continue as long as Hall has any say in the matter.
For example T.J. Stancil/Jackie Mitchell, James Johnson/LaDouphous McCalla, Lance Frazier/Davin Bush.
The big question is quarterback. Marcus Crandell will be hungry for success this season and I think that will really motivate him. He knows he is replacing an MVP and that idea must put some fire into a person's tank, especially a hungry veteran who has something to prove.
I also hear that Crandell is a popular player with the other 'riders; that he is generally well liked by the rest of the team. Popular players can often motivate others to play harder.
Also, Marcus Crandell is a first class person. He quietly without complaint accepted his role as a backup QB for many seasons knowing he has the skill to start. Many fans of other teams think Crandell was the best backup QB in the league. And when he was called on to play like that season he replaced Nealon Greene, he played well.
Some things to say to Mike and Arius.
Mike once again you are wrong. You talk to me like I dont know anything. You say Miller didnt coach d-line in Toronto. He did. You are wrong not me. Just like you were wrong about Tillman. Saying he lied about cap. Miller coached d-line in Toronto his last year. Coach Austin told us that at fan appreciation day. Said Adam Rita wanted to hire new o-line coach. Friend of his. Austin was pissed. Said Pinball asked Miller to move to d-line because of Rita pressure. So guess what? Miller did coach d-line in Toronto. And he does know about Flemmons.
Riders are still looking to replace Nate Davis Arius? Guess Bomber are to. Since they cut him after 1 game or 2. You forget 1 thing when you talk about Tillman and his changes. You never explain how Riders cut $600,000 in salaries and team got better. 3 more wins in regular season. And Grey Cup win.
Miller himself said this on the radio. They traded for Flemmons because he can play 2 positions. Tackle and end. Miller said Flemmons was there best tackle in Toronto. And he might play tackle here. That is what Miller said. So why are Riders signing DE's. Can you have to many good players? Maybe Miller thinks Flemmons will be his tackle not a end. If Flemmons plays tackle and Riders get rid of Adams you will say this. Adams was so bad they had to play Flemmons at tackle. Adams could not replace Nate Davis. Not that trade with Toronto got a good tackle.
I dont think Tillman is god like. You said I think it. I am a Riders fan. I supported Shivers. I support new gm. Just tired of 2 or 3 who cant get over Shivers being fired. Like he was victim. He had 7 years. Never got a home playoff game. Never got to 1 cup. Never won a cup. Austin and Tillman did all 3 in 1 year. Love how you say Shivers was told win or be fired last year. How that was unfair and made him keep Nate Davis. Is that why he kept Barrett to. 7 years was enough without even 1 home playoff game. And last 2 years with 9 wins. The record is the record. I supported Shivers and Barrett. Cheered for them. But they deserved to be fired. And Austin and Tillmans record in 2007 speaks for itself.
It is mind-boggling to me that people are arguing over what it means when we sign guys that instantly incumbents are on the bubble. Yes, they have to prove themselves, but isn't that training camp is for? The starters have to prove that they can still play, and are worthy of being the starter. There are open positions, such as DE and DT, and on the Oline. If the Riders bring in another kicker, it does not mean that Congi or Boreham will automatically lose their jobs. Even if you bring in a fifth QB, it just means there is more competition at that position.
As for the statement that the Riders did not "replace" Nate Davis last year is a totally ridiculuos notion. We had a pretty good Dline last year, so Davis was more than adquately "replaced". We now have to replace Perry at DE. If Flemons is the right person for the job, then so be it. If Hicks shows that he can play well, then make him the starter. It will be interesting to see who rises to the occasion.
Sambo, it is not ridiculous to say we didn't "replace" Nate---because we didn't. And no surprise really, as replacing a force (and all-star) like Nate is never easy. Now we had a number of injuries last year, including Jurineak for the entire season, and Chunky played through injury, which no doubt hampered his play. But by comparison, our d-line was simply not as effective in 2007 as they were in 2006. And now that the best player (by a wide margin) on that line is also gone, it makes the line a question mark heading to training camp. And while Chunky played well, what is ridiculous is to try and claim he played as well as Nate Davis when he was in his prime. It has been conceded by everyone here that he lost a step in 2006. Which simply goes to making the arguement Austin makes about the "bold move" of letting him go redundant. It surprised me not at all that Nate was released. So when Austin talks about how panicked everyone was over that, my question back to him was simply, who was panicked? It must have been him, and his fellow "supporters" of ET. Because it surely was not me...
Losing an aging Nate Davis cannot be compared to the impact losing Fred Perry will have. So his entire point isn't worth the paper he wrote it on...
So if you want to qualify "replaced" by adding "adequate", I can't argue with that. Chunky was adequate. And if he holds onto the job this year, I expect he will continue to be "adequate". And I like Chunky. Class guy. But frankly, one can safely look at that position as an area in which we need to be better. When Nate Davis was in his prime, that was the strength of the team. Now it is a weakness we use the term "adequate" to describe.
But losing Nate last year did not create a gaping hole in the defence. Losing Fred has.
I thought Mike’s point there was weak anyway, Austin. I didn’t know Miller actually coached the d-line in TO for a bit. But regardless, coaching against a guy in practice can show a lot anyway. So I certainly don’t dispute that Ken Miller likes Flemons.
Point two is a “who cares” point. Nate got old, live with it. I have spent time making monumental posts on these forums discussing the 800,000 that ET cut from the roster, so to whom are you addressing that point?
The team got better? on paper? Talent wise? Well given a new coach and a new GM, that team had relatively few changes in its starting line-up from 2006. The key personal WERE the 2006 team. The big change was just the renewal that comes with making the coaching change, which was overdue. But the only team better than the Riders in 2006 was the BC lions. And while we beat them in the West final, tough to not recognise they are talent wise likely still better than us (ask your guru, Mr. Tillman that question next time he is on Ridercult.com–he has on a number of occasions publically stated exactly that)—just not that day.
So yes, all the pieces came together nicely in 2007. Which is what must occur to win a championship. But better? That’s a finnicky word. As good maybe…
Funny that. I apparently don’t know anything. But I, without knowing what Miller said about Flemons, was “arrogant” enough to suggest Flemons may need to make the team as a tackle. I do find it interesting though that if Miller thought he was Toronto’s best tackle, how it is he never played that position for them. Never played for them at all, except for injuries and spot duty. Funny way to use your best tackle–especially in 2006 when Austin’s grandmother might have been an improvement at the tackle position for Toronto…
I think if Flemons comes to camp at 285-295, we’ll know for certain if he is a tackle or an end. If he stays at 265, we’ll still be left guessing.
Blah, blah, blah. I supported Shivers. I support Tillman. Who cares? Personally, I support the Riders, not the GM. But that is just me. But for a guy who claims to have “supported” Roy Shivers, you certainly seldom miss an opportunity to slam him. Roy did a tremendous job for this organization, and deserves more respect from people such as yourself. Doesn’t mean he didn’t make mistakes, or didn’t deserve to be criticised when he made those mistakes. But it also doesn’t serve to use revisionist history on the “record”. The “record” is that Roy Shivers and Danny Barret were absolutely left hanging on one year contracts, with the axe hanging over their heads, and only a home play-off game/Grey Cup win was going to save them. They were told exactly that, in no uncertain terms by the BoGs. That is in fact, unfair. And then firing Roy mid-season was beyond unfair, but actually was plain stupid. I could care less if we win 9 Grey Cups in a row with ET at the helm, a classless act remains a classless act. The end does not justify the means. Never.
I do not believe Roy and Danny should have been retained at all if they were going to be placed in that situation. They should have been terminated after the 2005 season. That is what fair would have looked like. I personally felt that DB should have been replaced after the 2004 season. But I understand why Roy did not do so. I disagree with him on that, but I understand it. Just like I understand what ET is doing–regarding the Perry trade, and the Joseph trade. I just believe he is mistaken.
Austin do you honestly believe that the Riders would have won the Grey Cup this year under Tillman and Austin had they not inherited the team they did? Or here is a better question, do you think that if you reverse the roles and place Kent Austin as head coach and Eric Tillman as General manager seven years ago they could have gotten to the place where the Rider organization is today? Do you think they would have done any better in those 7 years as what Shivers and Barrett did? I completly agree with you that Barrett needed to go, and disagree that Shivers needed to go. I'm going to give about 40% of the credit to the players for the Grey Cup win, 30% to Kent Austin, 15% to Roy Shivers, 10% to all the other assistant coaches, 3% to the fans and 2% to Eric Tillman.
2% for a man who cut $700,000 is salaries in 1 year. And was gm of team that got 3 more wins in regular season? Last time Riders won 12 was 70 something. 2% for man who traded for Flick and Cates and Smith. 3 of our best players. Greenandwhite using your math. That would be 32% for Tillman I think. Since he had the guts to hire Austin. Austin who was fired and out of work but became coach of year. How many times was Barrett coach of year?
You wish Barrett and Shivers had stayed. 9-9 was good enough. Right?. 7 years of 3rd place or 4th place was good enough. Right? Team almost million dollars over the cap finished 3rd place in 2006. Good enough. Right? Players getting arrested always in newspaper. Good enough. Tell me this. How many players arrested last year? Answer is 0.
Bad thing is this. A few Barrett and Shivers lovers are on here. People around league think you are what Rider fans are like. You are the 2%. You are like the players who are gone. Not the 10,000 of us who sat in cold to greet team after winning cup. 98% who thanked Austin and Tillman for giving us great team. Team to be be proud of Coach Austin said. On field and off field. You hate Austin and Tillman and Miller for cutting you or your friends. Or trading you or your friends. This province loved Austin. He helped us win 2 cups. It likes Tillman a lot. I heard Miller gave great speech today at annual meeting. If he wins we will love Miller to. But if he wins. It will be because of Barrett and Shivers right greenandwhite?
Keep crying over them. They had there time here. Couldnt get job done. 7 years and money to spend like Lions and Eskimos. But greenandwhite wishes we could go back to go old days of 9-9. And arrests every year. Not me. Im not with the 2% of you greenandwhite. The haters who loved Shivers and Barrett more than Riders. Austin was the man. And now it is Millertime. And if Miller as coach wins cup maybe greenandwhite will do this. Give Tillman 4%. 2% credit for each cup.
Austin you didn't answer my question at all. The question was had Tillman and Austin switched the time in which they were G.M and head coach to 7 years ago when the team was only winning 3 games a year would they have been able to have the success of Shivers and Barrett? Would Eric Tillman been able to build the 3 and 15 Saskatchewan Roughriders to the 12 and 6 Saskatchewan Roughriders? I'm going to bet no because if Tillman was up for the challenge he would have taken it 7 years ago when he was offered.
There were really only 2 arrests that I can think of with Shivers as G.M here in Saskatchewan, not 9 a year. Only time will tell if players will get arrested under Tillman, you got to remember he has only been here for one season.
As for your 10,000 people who were at Taylor Field to meet the team I was one of those 10,000. I was also one of the first ones there. I also went to City Hall to see the team off before the big game. I also would have went to the air port after the western semi had I not got bad information about what time they were going to be home at. I ran down Albert street on the night we one the cup with a big Rider flag and without gloves on as I didn't have time to grab any because I was in such a hurry to get out of the house. I was out that night till 2 in the morning and had university classes early the next morning. My room is full of Green and White. So before you go and shoot your mouth off the way that you did, get some facts.
You can blame Shivers for the amount of money spent, although I doubt they were 700 000 over the cap. I'm also going to remind you Tillman did not finish off the job of cutting down the salary as we still were over. Also Shivers had nothing to do with the cap as he was gone right around the time of the cap.
I don't disagree that it was time for Barrett to be gone. I do disagree on Shivers though, but I guess when Shivers tried to be loyal to a friend he gets stabbed in the back. That was his only real mistake as G.M. Why should Shivers be accountable for what his players do outside of practise? Is your employer in charge of what you do outside your job? I also think that the way it was handled was completly unproffesional, Grey Cup or not. Tillman had nothing to do with that. I just don't like how Tillman gets so much credit out of the deal even though it was mostly Roy Shivers' team that won the Grey Cup. Also notice nowhere did I give Danny Barrett credit for the Grey Cup win this season. I my honest opinion he was what was holding this team back from being a great team. I'm willing to wager that Shivers and Austin would have gotten the same results this year. Also notice I gave Kent Austin more credit then Roy Shivers or did you not read that part?
This is my answer. Tillman went to BC after Lions won 3 or 4 games in 93. Had 3 winning seasons. Won a cup. So my answer is yes. Since he did that. Took worst team in CFL and won cup in 2 or 3 years. Not 7 like here with Shivers. 0 championships. 0 times in cup.
Tillman has 3 grey cup wins as gm. Shivers 0 as gm. Not 1 here in 7 years. Not in Birmingham with all americans. 2 in Calgary I think but not gm. Being a scout is not same thing as being gm.
Now greenwhite let me ask you this. If Tillman came in here during 2006. Cut players and cut cap. What would you say? GM helped cap problems. Or he under mined Barrett and cost him his job? I know and you know.
This is my point greenwhite. I wanted Shivers to win. Bought season tickets every year. Wanted Barrett to win. But 7 years without finishing 1st or 2nd 1 time was enough. You can say it was Shivers team in 2007. But if they could not win with big money to spend on players in 2006. Why should you or me think this? Shivers and Barrett would have won with team that had to cut 8 or 10 players to get to cap?
1 more question. You say Shivers could have won with Austin. Do you expect 1 person to believe this? Shivers would have hired Austin.
Austin...I can honestly say, I had no knowledge of Miller coaching the defensive line. Given his press release said he coached the offense last year.
But lets get to the Flemons, here is a guy who played a back up role for most of the season but according to his stats, he started 10 games, but still could not match the stats of any other regular d-line player on Toronto and it seems to me TO had a good d-line last year. But Flemon was still the best player d-line player on team. That is a coach saying something good about a player he and his gm traded for.
You seem to want to bring shivers into every argument and how great of a job Tillman did. Well based on what we know there were at least 4 or 5 other teams that were as close or over what the riders spent. So what Tillman did wasn't that special. So get over it.
Additiionally, with the players that walked away from the team there was close to 500K in salary there alone (Kieth, Richardson, Morgan, Bush). But you give credit to Tillman for managing that.
You don't accept that Shivers and Barrett went over on the cap not only with the acceptance of the BOG but under the direction of the BOG and Mr. Hopson.
But then when Tillman goes over not because of true injuries but because of the paper cut brigade he is still a hero in your eyes....Tillman was told by the BOG to live in the cap but he didn't. So give me a break on oh he is saint for cutting so much.
Your comment about Tillman rebuilding the team in BC....you forgot to mention him getting run out of town in Ottawa.
Austin...you forgot about Mr. Hill being arrested while under contract to the riders after promising not to do anything. So there is 1 player....oh yes right your argument will be arrested in Regina....sorry you don't get that one. When you stop thinking of your football players as role models who need to live their lives to some standard, and start realizing these people are everyday humans, then maybe you can view the riders with a critical eye.
Austin you keep talking like being 1st or 2nd makes something special. Well look at the bombers, basically in the same situation as riders in 2nd place, but they didn't brake even this year. Why, any number of factors. But hosting a home playoff game is okay, but if I had a team that was in third place 5 years in roll and could win the cup 2 or 3 times I would take that over being in 1 or 2 for 5 years in a roll and not winning it once.
Right on Hill. Good point. But Austin and Tillman did cut him. That day I think.
Keith, Morgan, Bush and Richardson. They were 500 total cut from cap. That is what you said. Did Riders play with 4 less players in 2007? If they made 500 and new 4 made 250. What is that Mike? That is 250 gone of 700 total cut. Not 500 0f 700. Your cap math is still bad like when you said Tillman was lying about being 50 over. Remember Mike? Weeks of saying Tillman was lying and Riders would be over by a lot. Think you said more than 300. What was total Mike? 300? Or was it 50? Tell us.
You say stats say this about Flemmons. What about what Miller said himself. But you know more than our coach right?
Run Tillman out of Ottawa? That is what you said. Tell me this Mike. Why did Ottawa get worse after he left? Remember Tom Wright. I thought he was a good commisioner. Did you? Most Rider fans did. Why did he say Tillman must come back to Gleibermans? Told them to hire him. Google and read stories about Ottawa wanting Tillman back. Tell me this. Was Joseph a bad player in Ottawa? Was Flick? Was Armstead? Was Kory Banks? Ottawa was owners not players not coaches not gm. It was owners.
You asked this. Does 1st place or 2nd place mean anything? I say this. Didnt Riders make close to half million dollars hosting game? Hopson was talking about how much money they made from home playoff. Good argument Mike. Riders with Barrett didnt get 1st or 2nd or cup win. Riders with Austin? They did both. Great argument Mike.
Mike Im not a Tillman is the best ever cheerleader. Think hes done some dumb things here. And I wanted Shivers to do good here. For 7 years I did this. Cheered for his coach Barrett. Try to do this Mike. Cheer for Miller and Tillman. You might have fun. More fun being Riders fan than hater of Shivers replacemant. Team was not Shivers. It was not Barrett. It was not Austin. It is not Miller. It is not Tillman. Im just tired of this. Shivers lovers who see all bad in Tillman. Believe bad on everything. If I wanted to see all bad in Shivers I could have to.
1 more time Mike. Keith, Morgan, Bush and Richardson. Was it 500 or 250 saved? It was 250 right? What if big 4 made 400 total. Not 500? Then it was only this. 150 saved of the 700 cut. So either way Mike is wrong. Wrong like about the cap to. How far Riders were over in 2007 and about gm telling truth about being only 50 over.
Does every thread have to turn into a "You hate Tillman" - "No, I don't" contest?? Get over it, people.
Funny how winning the Grey Cup is still not enough for some people
Im just tired of this.It does get tiresome. Look, I don't agree with everything Mike says. He is pretty tough on ET. Some of it deserved. Some not. Personally, I don't think I am all that hard on him. No doubt you disagree about that. But when you constantly slam Roy to make ET look better, exagerate ETs accomplishments and diminish those of Roy, it certainly is tiresome. We've had this discussion before, but here it goes again. yes, ET has 3 rings. Good on him. But in his 3 years in BC, his team was 4th, with 2 thirds. The win loss record was skewed by the entrance into the league of the American teams. But you can't take away the Grey Cup win. In Toronto, another ring. He didn't do much in his one year, except I guess help the best team to play in the league in the last 20 years win it's second Cup. He didn't make it the best team--but back-to-back gets some applause. And then 9-9 in 1999 (3rd--but who's counting...) upon his return. But in Ottawa, he did nothing. Yes, the ownership group was a joke. . But in fact, the team got better AFTER ET left, not worse. 4-14, 7-11, 5-13 is what the CFL website says, then 7-11 without ET. So in his 3rd year, the team went backwards. Not likely all his fault, but if he gets all the credit for winning here, why can't he take some of the blame in Ottawa? Or maybe what I say has some merit? Too much blame when a team loses; too much credit when a team wins? So yes, 3 rings. But in 9 years as a GM, one 1st, one 2nd, three 3rds, one 4th, and three consecutive missing the play-offs. Not really a record of legendary proportions. But decent. I suppose. Then we always must talk about the off-field stuff. One guy. That is it. One guy during Roy's tenure that was arrested and convicted of anything. One. And frankly, given the nature of that one, not much any coach or GM could do. A player having sex? Say it ain't so!! Or maybe we had a marijuana misdemeanor. Maybe. But these guys were out of control!! But Hakim Hill doesn't count because he got into trouble before the ink was dry on the contract. The guy had a rap sheet longer than my arm, but because ET tells us he wept when he got into trouble, it is all good...it doesn't count, right? just like we never see the names of the white guys that have gotten into trouble listed by the Leader-Post when that issue is brought up. But when slamming Roy, they aften see the need to mention guys who never even played here while Roy was the GM--just the black guys though.... Regarding the cap, ET did a very good job getting us down in salary. Very nice indeed. But he was hardly a miracle worker. Again, facts, Austin, facts. I know Mike can't add or subtract, but what's your problem? We were over by 1.1 million in 2006. Cap was 3.8, we spent 4.9. We cut 800,000. The cap went up 250,000. Leaving us 50,000 over. That's all pretty good right? Yes, but.....every team in the league was over the cap in 2006, with the possible exception of Hamilton. We were the second or third highest pay roll in 2006. We are again the 2nd highest payroll in 2007. Unless the rumours in Montreal are completely false, in which case we might actually be #1 this year... We only spent 200,000 more than Edmonton in 2006. So we did not spend excessively by comparison to what other teams spent. And in making the direct comparison against other teams in 2006 and 2007 we spent in proportion, EXACTLY as much in 2007 as we did in 2006. No change whatsoever. Not quite as spectacular as it is so often portayed if you don't look at it as something that occurred in isolation to the rest of the league. But still a very good job. On the player side, yes, we went to camp missing 9 starters from 2006. A high number, but not ridiculously or unusually so, and with a new GM and coach, hardly surprising. What was surprising, is given that number, only one rookie found a starting position last year, and that was due to injury, not one of the 9. Of the 9, we lost one to retirement, and 4 to free agency. So we only released 4 guys. That is not many at all. And we replaced 3 of them with guys who were here in 2006. So only 6 new faces. There is a certain amount of turnover every year. We have lost 5 players already this year, 3 of whom were all-stars, including the somewhat important guy at QB who was only the league MOP. I think we will see a few veterans gone after the pre-season this year (no veteran starter lost his job in the exhibition season last year). So we could conceivably see MORE turnover this year, off the Grey Cup champion team, ET and Kent Austin's team, than we saw last year from the supposedly crappy Roy Shivers product.
And before you start blabbing about how bloody negative I am, I’ll just say, there is nothing negative in any of what (a smattering of sarcasm perhaps) I have said. Just a reasonable and fair assessment of things. Though I already know you will have difficulty separating out opinion from fact.
Now, go ahead and build ET up some more by tearing Roy Shivers down…
Sorry, Jm (and ro).
But I personally find it insulting to constantly be told I, or others, somehow are not fans with crap like this:
Bad thing is this. A few Barrett and Shivers lovers are on here. People around league think you are what Rider fans are like. You are the 2%. You are like the players who are gone. Not the 10,000 of us who sat in cold to greet team after winning cup. 98% who thanked Austin and Tillman for giving us great team. Team to be be proud of Coach Austin said. On field and off field. You hate Austin and Tillman and Miller for cutting you or your friends. Or trading you or your friends. This province loved Austin. He helped us win 2 cups. It likes Tillman a lot. I heard Miller gave great speech today at annual meeting. If he wins we will love Miller to. But if he wins. It will be because of Barrett and Shivers right greenandwhite?I see no reason why I, or anyone else needs to put up with that, so I fight back as best I can.