I missed the whole thing and I think the thread was deleted that mentioned it..
Thanks in advance
I missed the whole thing and I think the thread was deleted that mentioned it..
That video doesn't include the bit that people are talking about. Drew posted the missing part to youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtlEE0IcBUw
From Drew Edwards Spectator column,quote:
Austin also took exception to questions about his decision to go for it on third down deep in his own territory late in the fourth, trailing by six. A turnover on downs would have given the Redblacks an easy field goal – and perhaps more – in a situation where every point matters in the fight for first place.
The Ticats converted both times, once on a roughing the passer call that knocked Mathews from the last minute of the game.
"Did it hurt us, yes or no? Next question," a testy Austin said. "Get your stupid questions (out) and ask me something that's more pertinent."
Drew posting this on youtube is disappointing ,he must be looking to escalate the friction between him and Austin that has been brewing for a while.
I think Drew Edwards needs to get a little thicker skinned and cut the drama youtube postings. :cowboy: (cut the challenging questions of coaching decisions to embarrass or get even with Austin from previous encounters between young Drew and experienced Kent)
As posted earlier Austin made a good call not punting into a gale wind showing confidence in his offence with the hope of squeezing out a win in spite of Officials on the field and Special team players lack of discipline .
I disagree. It was a HORRIBLE decision to go for it on third down that late in the game. For the coach to reply "Did it hurt us?" is inconsequential. If a friend has a few drinks and drives home safely does that make it OK? IT IS WRONG.
in a two game total points you can treat the first game as an open ended 2 hour game.
Would Austin have gone for it if there was 60 minutes left in the game in that situation? NO WAY he would have.
Bad decision, bad judgment by the coach. He should be called on it.
Put on your big boy pants Austin and own what you do out there because that could have been very costly.
And no, it did not hurt you.
slimpickens wrote: “…cut the challenging questions of coaching decisions to embarrass or get even with Austin from previous encounters between young Drew and experienced Kent…”
slim. Wrong. It's Drew's JOB to ask "challenging" questions! He's not being paid by the Tiger-Cats and I sure as hell would like to know about some of his decisions. Drew is a good guy and the best Tiger-Cat beat reporter I can remember back to 1961. The duo of him and Steve Milton is the envy of any CFL -based city daily newspaper
It’s also Kent Austin’s job to answer those questions. It goes with the territory. A simple explanation of why he did what he did is sufficent…maybe his reasons were something many of us had not considered.
I posted earlier that Kent should have delayed the newser until he was more in control of his emotions. We understand that he us upset…he is a fiery competitor. But that video is an embarrassment to him and the team.
Good points ,OK,it's Drews job to ask questions .
I agree with the go for it call because of the Gale wind factor and Medlocks lack of success into gale force winds .
Lets say our place kicker, forced to be punter ,Medlock (who is great field goal kicker ) punts into the gale wind ,it knuckleballs about fifteen yards ,we are bound to get a no yards penalty since covering the kick is next to impossible ,a fifteen yard punt with a no yards penalty against us is a net of what Drew?
Good point about delaying the press conference why not send a media relations guy not a pissed off coach ,league rule that coaches attend .
Maybe the Ticats should not have edited it in the first place. Then Drew does not have to publish the whole thing.
Drew always posts the whole scrum on youtube anyway.
The only thing he did different this time was mention that the Ticats edited that part out of their version.
He was trying to get a reaction from KA and he did. These media guys ask the same questions over and over. I don't blame Austin for getting pissed off. He made a coaching call, Drew and his hack friends had to ask the question or their precious reputation would be ruined
Big hairy frigging deal, why don't they give the coach a little time after the game, especially when they lose. :roll:
S. Lawrence's clean hit on Burris is shown here ,well above the knee on the thigh ,Simoni was committed and in the motion of tackling Henry clearly before Henry releases the ball.https://t.co/RAYU4j1voT
Very questionable call and this video shows up the biased TSN panel.
Chris Shultz calling Simoni classless was way out of line ,maybe too many concussions on that panel Matt and Chris?
Protecting QB's is the right way to go but roll outside the pocket and hang on to the ball a second too long you can get hit and hurt.
I found the question very on point. Its a two game series and that call is a big gamble. I don't think Drew deserved to be ridiculed for it. Austin could have said I gambled for reason x, y or z. I think Drew wanted to get Austin's mindset in making those calls.
Why is the call to go for it on 3rd & 9 wrong when you have a poor against the GALE wind punter like Medlock?
Drew's point was very legit and I would criticize him for not asking it had he of not.
Austin needs to get down from his pedestal where he's the football know it all, considering how many clock management errors he's made in the past couple seasons. Kent is a very good coach, the best since Lancaster. His ability to evaluate talent and get the most out of his team is top notch, he's made us a top organization and sustained it, however his in game clock and timeout management needs work, and since he's his own boss theres likely nobody telling him that.
That's the thing. Drew never claimed it was wrong. He just asked for how and why he chose to go that route.
Which pretty much every fan was questioning when it happened. I too would have been annoyed at Drew had he not asked. Austin's response indicates one or more things:
- He didn't feel he needed to explain his reasons to the press or his fans;
- He was still angry about the way his team had played and flipped at the first question that annoyed him;
- He doesn't like Drew and decided to belittle him in public;
- He was embarrassed by his reason or lack thereof.
I like Drew but I think his gig is up.
Time to move on to another assignment at The Spec.
I thought that is how Austin commonly responds to Edwards. As early as Austin's introductory press conferences, he was acting this same way toward him. It is not unusual for things to go sour later on if the coach thinks the reporter has been unfair to the team. But in this case, Austin seemingly had zero respect for Edwards from the very start.
[quote="Crash"]Drew's point was very legit and I would criticize him for not asking it had he of not.
Austin needs to get down from his pedestal where he's the football know it all, considering how many clock management errors he's made in the past couple seasons. Kent is a very good coach, the best since Lancaster. His ability to evaluate talent and get the most out of his team is top notch, he's made us a top organization and sustained it, however his in game clock and timeout management needs work, and since he's his own boss theres likely nobody telling him that.[/quote]
You just did...and I think with much diplomacy :thup: :thup: (you call it getting off his pedestal...I call it him thinking he can walk on water) I hope the caretaker can settle him down, or he will have wasted a pile of money. :oops:
I'm very disappointed with Austin right now...even more so since "here we go again"...needs to have another back-up because of injury (Mathews out...signs Gale) and we have limited game time with those that are available. :roll:
That and the lack of a running game, along with the clock management and his "know it all attitude" makes me disappointed in him. I don't have a good feeling about our chances this year either...no it's not all on the coach, injuries happen, but we could have been more prepared.