Discussion in 'Edmonton Oilers' started by guymez, Nov 20, 2017.
I would like to know who extended Maas...was it Rhodes or Sunderland?
I'm sure it was Rhodes. Sunderland wouldn't have the power to extend Maas at this point.
So the General Manager of the team wouldn't have to power to extend the coach?
Does that not seem a little dysfunctional to you?
Well, look at the situation in Hamilton last year. The Head Coach is actually the GM's boss.
The fact (I believe) is that Rhodes is really the GM and Sunderland is the assistant GM until he gets a few more years experience. Titles don't matter but power does.
The Hamilton situation was quite unique so I am not sure its a very good comparable.
If an obvious non football man like Rhodes is making GM decisions (football decisions), like extending the coach, then how on earth can the average Eskimo fan feel confident that the team is being run properly?
I mean if you hire someone to be the GM then let him be the GM...its pretty simple. Either Sunderland was qualified to do the job or he wasnt.
Rhodes sure as hell isnt qualified to be the GM.
Maas' extension was decided jointly between Sunderland and Rhodes. It wouldn't have happened if Sunderland hadn't wanted Maas.
If Sunderland was an actual GM then Rhodes wouldnt even be involved.
Makes this even more clear why Hervey was fired. Rhodes wants a measure of control over football ops and he appears to have that with the new guy.
I am honestly surprised that I am the only one that seems to have an issue with this....especially considering the history of Rhodes and his jackass ways.
I don't think there's too much doubt that both the Esks and the Oilers have been mismanaged over the last decade. .
My hope is that we see some younger guys emerge who can establish themselves in both organizations and bring credibility to their respective clubs. Hopefully Sunderland is one of those guys.
I totally appreciate the need to be hopeful. I really do.
The disturbing reality is that until the upper Management in both organizations is properly readjusted the teams are very unlikely to be consistently contending teams.
I am sure that you would agree that it takes a solid Upper Management team to create a solid foundation for a solid organization. With the structure thats in place now and their support of Rhodes the ingredients for consistent success just do not exist.
In terms of the Eskimos the only saving grace is to hope that Rhodes is able to get out of the way (of his own ineptitude and insecurities) enough to allow the team to succeed.
I guess the secret to overlooking this is to pretend that these important organizational standards just dont matter.
Lots of fans seem to be quite happy doing this.
I'm no fan of Len Rhodes but, as the Esks' team president, it's not crazy for him to have somewhat of a say about how & where money is spent within the organization (including contracts). In this case that say most likely took the form of a rubber stamp approval of his GM's wish to extend the HC.
The history of Len Rhodes suggests that this is more than a rubber stamp situation.
That being said I dont blame you for trying to convince yourself that all is well with the good ship Eskimo.
I think I'll cheer for BC this year.
I have no love for DM, but the ratio is stupid. Canadian players should make it on merit, not because of some Cancon rule says they have to be there. That hurts the integrity of the product, which is compromised to begin with.
I would not have because I actually agree about his emotional outbursts being an embarrassment, particularly as the head coach, and sometimes have wondered the streaky nature of the team over the last two years is tied to those emotions. His first year record went Lose 1, Win 2, Lose 3, Win 3, Win 6 of 7, lose final. Second year, Win 7, Lose 6, Win 6, lose final. That's what I'll be watching for this year. To see if he reign things in before a loss grows into 3 or more losses again.
I know it was a joke but I thought it wasn't funny and it wasn't necessary as the one thing most say is that his intelligence is one of his biggest strengths. However, we'll move on as enough has been said on it.
I remember being angry when Maas made that bad decision in the western final and then didn't own it as he should have. He's highly emotional, as shown by his onfield displays. To suggest that he's unintelligent as some have done and implied because some decisions and antics is wrong and unfair. It's the same emotion that he showed when he played. He needs to tone it down and I think his decision making will improve as he matures as a head coach.
We have two bright young people running this team in Sunderland and Maas. I think our team is in good hands. Both are new at this and will get better. I trust Sunderland and he trusts Maas, who is loved by the players. Rhodes isn't as involved in that side of the org as people think.
Maas is such a smart man. Talking to him he just is so knowledgeable and in love with what he does. Could careless about these character issues that really aren't even character issues.
Noticed him on local radio a couple times as well, something I know he didn't do during the year at all last year. Wonder if he's trying on working on being a better communicator with the media. Although I could careless I hate most our media anyway.
Actually he did do the weekly coaches show with Morley, I believe on Monday nights. They were usually pretty good listens, other than a couple where he belabored a couple decisions by the league or officials (i.e. Calgary game officiating, mid-season rule changes on padded practices).
I do think he's trying, but for someone like him the change is going to take a while to happen.
I know Gregor complained that he couldn't get him on his show, which was odd because I thought they kinda hung out with similar people and were somewhat friends when Maas was a player.
At the end of the day though I don't care that the media gets shut down. It sucks from a fan standpoint, but some of these guys ask such stupid and useless **** and then wonder why people avoid them? I mean it's no Larry Brooks, but not much better in Edmonton
The purpose of the ratio was to grow Canadian football talent and have someplace for them to play. I support it for that reason alone. Canadian players struggle on merit initially because they haven’t had the development time the American players coming out of American colleges had. After a few years of development many can stand on their own.
The other reason I like it is because it allows some continuity for teams with the Canadian players. The CFL is enough of a transient league as it is with thousands of players leaving US colleges every year. At least with the Canadian players, because the pool is so much smaller, we get a chance to get to know and watch them for a few years. Without them I think we’d see even more of a revolving door of players as the young guys coming into the league every year would be younger and cheaper. Good for the bottom line I guess but I find it tiresome getting to know all new players every year. We’d essentially just be a farm league for the NFL and from there it’s a small step getting rid of the Canadian rules. I like the uniqueness of the Canadian game. IMO, it would be a travesty getting rid of the ratio.
The cfl already IS a farm league for the NFL. The ratio does nothing to stop it. Really good Canadian players skip the cfl and go to the NFL anyway. There is more player turnover now than there ever was back in the glory days of the league. The ratio does nothing, other than degrade the talent pool even further. That is not a good thing for a league with declining attendance.
This really is the key.
It’s not a farm league because the NFL can’t call players up in the middle of the season. A player under contract plays the entire season up here. I agree that it can be seen as a feeder league but there’s a big difference between that and a club owned farm team.
Very few Canadian players go directly to the NFL from college.
The high turnover is mostly the American players because the pool of them is so deep that they’re basically a dime a dozen. The real valued assets are the Canadian players because there are fewer of them. These are the players you can expect to see for a few years. Take them away and you start turning over your roster every single season because there, in that vast pool of talent, will always be someone else just as good willing to play for less. I’m not sure how that enhances the fan experience.
As far as the product goes, to me it’s entirely dependent on how good the quarterbacks in the league are. We went through a serious dry spell for about 4-5 years where there may have only been 5 or 6 good quarterbacks in the league and most of them were hurt. As a result the games were awful. I’m not sure how that’s to be blamed on Canadian talent. Incidentally, I thought last season was the best season for entertainment in many years. There were a lot of good quarterbacks and it wasn’t just the starters either.
The ratio has nothing to do with declining attendance.
Sure it does. You have less talent in the league which equals less skilled league, which equals less interest.
Does anyone actually as a fan give two ****s about what nation a guy is from when they are cheering? So then why not put the best product out that you can?