Cortez release by Riders

[WestCoastJoe]

Very funny Blitz!!!!

Joe, I think your list makes a lot of sense...I have never believed that you can make the right hire of this magnitude over a 3 or 4 hour, one day interview...if you are serious about a candidate, as part of a final list, that person needs to fly out and spend a few days with Wally...talk at the stadium, down on the "grass", go out to Surrey in the rain and talk about practices...sit in the office and go over film...

I think so, MLF, at least two days.

The bottom line for any GM is that SCENARIO questions are the most valuable tools to fetter out truth...you have to go over the most crucial scenarios in a football game to understand what this coach will do. But THE MOST important discussion is on systems...what are you proposing as our base D and O...who are thinking will run the O, the D, the S Ts, the OLine, DLine, Receivers, etc...how do these systems compete with John Hufnagel, Chris Jones and Kent Austin??? That's who you have to beat to get the big game, how are we going to do it? Then, its PERSONNEL...what do you think about our roster, group by group, player by player...where do we have to get better, how are we going to find these replacements...

Yes, that is key. How do you challenge Hufnagel, Jones and Austin? How do you take away strength? How do you capitalize on a perceived weakness? And in the days prior to a huge game, what do you say to your team about blackboard material, provocative comments that can fire up the opposition?

Ask what some of the best compliments were that the candidate had received from an older, highly respected coach? Anyone say how hard his team played? Anyone say how well organized they looked, how an observer could see the plan? Anyone say how the opponent could not handle your blitz, et cetera?

If the candidate can wow Wally over three days, and answer all these questions in a fashion that Wally can understand and begin to trust in, then that's your guy! For me, beyond the systems, coaches and players discussions, the most important question of all??? How are you going to beat Rich Stubler, Dave Dickenson and John Hufnagel in Calgary?

I think there might always be a little bit of doubt in a hire. Give it the due diligence. Past success, at a number of places, with different roles is big.

IMO ...

[Toppy Vann]

Systems are important BUT not the MOST IMPORTANT for the HC as the key is what Coordinators he is hiring and what systems they employ and how it fits the CFL game and other teams and this team's talent.

[South Pender]

All good suggestions. A couple of points. First, although the panel situational interview is far superior to an ordinary one-on-one chat (which is about all a one-on-one unstructured interview is), we don't know (a) whether the candidate would actually do what he's saying he'd do and (b) how effectively he'd carry out the action he proposes. Second, as for the "how would you beat Hufnagel" type of question, I'm not sure that any answer can be treated as unequivocally correct. It would require that the panel (or Wally) have what is undeniably the correct answer in hand to score the response. And I doubt that Wally knows for sure what the correct answer would be. Still, that kind of question can more easily be scored for really bad answers, and that might be of value. And some qualitative information might be obtainable from the response.

With respect to the first point above, one technique I've used in the assessment of senior management and executive candidates (right through to the CEO level) is the role play. It can be seen as a very high-fidelity simulation and goes one step beyond the situational or scenario-type of question in which the candidate is asked what he would do in various circumstances. With the role-play technique, the candidate is required to figure out what he should do and then actually do this. Obviously, many facets of the job cannot be assessed this way, but some--particularly interpersonal behaviors--can be. For example, you could pose the following scenario: Player A has been dogging it in practice and takes some plays off in games. How would you deal with this? You have your role-player play the part of the player in question, and have the candidate actually carry out his verbal exchange with the player. The role player will carry out the behavior of the player, protesting, justifying, pushing back, etc., and the candidate has to deal with these behaviors as well as with the original problem. This method requires good role players as part of the assessment team, but many trained management consultants and industrial psychologists are very good at this. We've always video-taped the role-play sessions and then rated the candidates' performance via a small panel afterwards. You get a great deal of good information about the candidates interpersonal style--above and beyond their handling of the specific problem--from observing the whole interaction.

What I'm describing is part of what we refer to as an Assessment Center--which is a process, not a location. The role-play technique is a widely-used exercise in assessment centers with managerial personnel, and could, I think, be used in a really thorough vetting of HC candidates. Again, I think Wally would be wise to obtain the help of some assessment experts rather than relying entirely on his own judgement this time around.

[WestCoastJoe]

Systems are important BUT not the MOST IMPORTANT for the HC as the key is what Coordinators he is hiring and what systems they employ and how it fits the CFL game and other teams and this team's talent.

Yeah, that is a tough one, Toppy. What coordinators would the prospective HC wish to bring in?

Who is available? Kent Austin was able to bring along Tommy Condell as his OC. They had worked together at Cornell. And Condell had CFL experience.

http://scratchingpost.thespec.com/2012/ ... video.html

Nice article on Condell, and his hiring in Hamilton by Austin.

[Blitz]

This is a most interesting time as a Leo fan.

I thought that Buono made an interesting statement when he said, in his press conference, that 'we have to make this team more exciting'. Buono usually focuses just on winning. That to me indicated that he is either feeling pressure or getting pressure or both to get a more exciting product on the field for fans. The offence was so boring this season and the defense was so vanilla that fans were not excited about the way we played as well as the fact that we finished fourth in the West. To me, the 'exciting' comment indicates the potential for the kind of changes in coaching that we need.

Buono established his legacy in the dual role of both GM and HC. However, his legacy in the sole role of GM is under the microsocope.

Buono`s comments about being a legend and also making mistakes are interesting. His comment ``Did I make mistakes? Yes, I made mistakes. Would I redo some of the things that maybe I did? Yes. Was the intent to help this football team win? Yes.”

To help our Leos win in the future Buono needs to take on a different role as a GM. He needs to hire a very good coach, let that coach hire his own assistants, focus on getting some very talented and also some very good character players here next season, and stop trying to coach the team. Buono retired as a HC so its time for him to really retire. He could play the role that Ackles played with him when Buono came to B.C. but that was not to make lineup decisions.

There has been a lot of discussion on Lionbackers in terms of the type of new HC we want...and much of that has focused on philosophy, strategy, etc.

But this Lions team was a fractured team in the dressing room and lacked identity. Some of that came from a lack of discipline, favoritism, team rules broken by some without conseqences and others being disciplined (unfairness) as well as a lack of confidence in the HC and players also going to Buono....none of it good stuff. You don`t get chemistry that way, player leadership does not develop, etc. Vets like Marsh and McCallum commented on the lack of discipline...eg; team rules, meetings, practices.

So the new HC needs to have presence, consistency, standards, fairness, and be able to clearly lay out his philosophy and vision as well as the plan to get back to being a winning franchise. Very importantly will be that each player has to earn his spot in the lineup. There have been some very questionable decisions regarding the lineup over the past couple of seasons, based upon performance, and that has to change because the message that sends is not a good one.

[WestCoastJoe]

Well said, Blitz.

Interesting about the excitement comment by Wally. Listening to the turnstiles as related by Braley and Skulsky.

[B.C.FAN]

I think Wally is feeling pressure from Skulsky and/or Braley to build a more aggressive and exciting team that will sell tickets. Winning solves a lot of problems from a marketing standpoint but the comment I heard more often than ever this year was that the Lions and the CFL in general were boring to watch, in part because defences had the upper hand on offences. The firing of Benevides was done swiftly to send a message to fans that change was needed. The Lions under Benevides were too conservative on both side of the ball. One example is that the Lions punted 10 times this year on 3rd and 1 or less. Edmonton and Hamilton punted only 3 times on 3rd and 1. Calgary punted 5 times. Yet all three of those teams had a better conversion rate than the Lions when they gambled. The Lions need to be more aggressive. Gamble on short yardage. Blitz on first down. Throw some vertical routes to the wide receivers. Run a fake field goal occasionally. Aggressive football doesn't always pay off but it can be a lot more fun to watch.

[South Pender]

I think Wally is feeling pressure from Skulsky and/or Braley to build a more aggressive and exciting team that will sell tickets. Winning solves a lot of problems from a marketing standpoint but the comment I heard more often than ever this year was that the Lions and the CFL in general were boring to watch, in part because defences had the upper hand on offences. The firing of Benevides was done swiftly to send a message to fans that change was needed. The Lions under Benevides were too conservative on both side of the ball. One example is that the Lions punted 10 times this year on 3rd and 1 or less. Edmonton and Hamilton punted only 3 times on 3rd and 1. Calgary punted 5 times. Yet all three of those teams had a better conversion rate than the Lions when they gambled. The Lions need to be more aggressive. Gamble on short yardage. Blitz on first down. Throw some vertical routes to the wide receivers. Run a fake field goal occasionally. Aggressive football doesn't always pay off but it can be a lot more fun to watch.

If this is a league-wide sentiment, perhaps some rule-tweaking is called for--or "points of emphasis" articulated. This was done before this season in the NFL to help offenses (albeit only slightly). Not sure yet how that has worked out.

[Blitz]

I think Wally is feeling pressure from Skulsky and/or Braley to build a more aggressive and exciting team that will sell tickets. Winning solves a lot of problems from a marketing standpoint but the comment I heard more often than ever this year was that the Lions and the CFL in general were boring to watch, in part because defences had the upper hand on offences. The firing of Benevides was done swiftly to send a message to fans that change was needed. The Lions under Benevides were too conservative on both side of the ball. One example is that the Lions punted 10 times this year on 3rd and 1 or less. Edmonton and Hamilton punted only 3 times on 3rd and 1. Calgary punted 5 times. Yet all three of those teams had a better conversion rate than the Lions when they gambled. The Lions need to be more aggressive. Gamble on short yardage. Blitz on first down. Throw some vertical routes to the wide receivers. Run a fake field goal occasionally. Aggressive football doesn't always pay off but it can be a lot more fun to watch.

If this is a league-wide sentiment, perhaps some rule-tweaking is called for--or "points of emphasis" articulated. This was done before this season in the NFL to help offenses (albeit only slightly). Not sure yet how that has worked out.

I totally agree with your post B.C. Fan....we need to play a more aggressive brand of football on both sides of the line of scrimmage. Yes, defenses were ahead of offences this season but at least most teams played a more exciting brand of football than we did. Yes, it was effective for most of the season but eventually it caught up to us, and it also did in some big games against good teams.

I`m not sure how much rule changes and tweaking can be done to help scoring. The CFL is a wide field with deep end zones, there is a tremendous amount of motion allowed, defenses have to be one yard off the football, and defensive holding and illegal contact on a reciever downfield give recievers a lot of advantages.

We penalize punters who kick the football out of bounds outside the 20 yard line, forcing punters to kick to returners.
I think we could make some changes on special team blocking to open up the return game. It should have to be a definite block in the back for a penalty to be called. We could also prevent contact on downfield tacklers for the first 20 yards or so.

But the reality is that too many offences in the CFl are still stuck in the spread offence, which is past its best before date. Defenses adjusted to that offence a number of seasons ago and they keep adjusting, while most offences are still stuck doing the same thing, over and over again.

Look at our offence this season. It was the offence that Flutie ran in Calgary. Lots of five and six receiver sets. But defenses didn`t blitz much in those days, except for a Matthews or a Ritchie defense. Teams didn`t zone blitz or play press man coverage. They had smaller defensive tackles so running inside was easier. The fifth receiver was often matched against a slow linebacker and the sixth reciever against an even slower one in those days. Flutie`s mobility made the offence even tougher to defend.

Run that same offence today, as we do, even if we had a younger Flutie back at the controls and it would be different. Defenses would blitz inside and outside. They would take away a lot of Fluties`mobility. He would have a lot less time to throw. Defenses would send 7 defenders on a zone blitz with stunts or send six with press man coverage. The nickel and dime back didn`t exist back then. Those fifth and sixth recievers would be covered by fast defensive backs and not slow linebackers. The inside run would not work like it did in the 90`s with the huge defensive tackles we have in the CFL now.

Yet we keep on attacking those defenses as if they were 90`s defenses and they are not. They have changed in terms of type of personell, speed, and strategy. But very few offences have changed much. Chap probably changed offensive strategy more than any CFL offensive coordinator from 2011-2013 but he also had Dorazio, so its was more than a challenge without at least adequate blocking. Prior to 2011 Chap was very stuck in the spread offence as well as having poor offensive line blocking and coaching.

Hufnagel also made serious changes and especially his emphasis on the run game and new offensive blocking schemes, including the return of trap and fold blocks. The run game in Calgary sets up the pass game, as it did here in 2007 with Hufnagel as a consultant. Trestman brought multiple formations with a West Coast offence flair that got the ball fast out of the quick throwing Cavillo. It was an offence that was challenging to match up to.

But that`s mostly it. Austin, Milanovich, and Cortez are spread offence devotees. If they have a top running back and a very good, talented offensive line, it works at times. Ricky Ray has his struggles at times overcoming the scheme he has and also had the same challenges in Edmonton when he was there. Hamilton was awful in the red zone this year. Cortez couldn`t overcome, without Durrant or a top running back. Their offences are not dynamic nor are they innovative for the most part. They are very dependent on great quarterback play as well. Calgary can insert a Kevin Glenn as they did in 2012 and 2013 and still be reasonably successful and a first year starting quarterback in Bo Levi this year and win a Grey Cup. We did the same in 2011 with Lulay who didn`t have a lot of experience as a starter going into that season.

But defenses are even better now. If anyone thinks that we would have had a great season with the offence we ran this year, with a healthy Lulay as our starter or a Bo Levi Mitchell as our starter, I believe they are engaging in magical thinking. We might have been better but we saw Lulay in the Ottawa game struggle before his injury. Yes he was a bit rusty but that was not the whole picture.

The reality is that you need a very good offensive line to pick up blitzes and stunts, a very good offensive line coach, and you also need a very good scheme designed for today`s CFL defenses, as well as good quarterback play to be a dynamic offence right now.

[Blitz]

There is an old saying that "its not the critic who counts".

So, in playing arm chair new offensive coordinator what would I do?

1. I would go with a lot of pro set formations, with one and often two true tight ends who can block and run patterns and catch. This would both powerfully add to the run game and yet be able to play action out of. It would really help our offence to run off-tackle and outside more effectively and create opportunities for doublle team blocks and trap plays. The tight ends would be key players in the pass game and when I chose to, I would split one out.

2. I would recruit these types of tight ends out of American colleges with programs who utilize the tight end in their passing attack or find some NFL cuts. We would have to go with imports for these positions.

3. We could do that by playing four Nationals on the offensive line. Olofoye would be my only import offensive lineman. Hunter Stewart looked outstanding at left tackle this season, Fabian and Valli would be the guards. My first draft choice wold be a Canadian center who has played the position in college.

4. I would bring in an International fullback who can block, run, and catch. I would go two back set a lot. I would not use the fullback exclusively as a blocker. Instead he would run quick hitters against the blitz, run misdirection trap plays, and we would run a lot of counter action. He would be used for misdirection and lead blocking. He would be a key player in the sceen game including throw back screens. He could be split out as a lead blocker for bubble screens. He would be a key for play action. The fullback would be highly utilized in the passing attack, with an old West Coast offence approach to his position.

5. With a pro set focus I would have the quarterback take the handoff under center rather than being in the pistol or shotgun for the majority of snaps except for key passing downs. That would allow quick hitting run plays with trap blocking to combat big tackles. The pro set would allow us to take advantage of tweener linebackers and nickel backs who are small. They can be blocked effectively by big tight ends and good blocking fullbacks. It would allow us to run sweeps with a lead guard and the fulback as well as kick out blocks off tackle.

6. We would be a run focus, play action offence that could effectively pass out of pro sets. The tight ends would allow us the option of blocking blitzes, or run quick seam patterns. (especially with the quarterback under center). We could also send the tight end deep down the center when defenses blitz a safety.

7. The pro set would give us some real advantages of having the time to go deep against blitzing defenses, which scarees the hell out of them.

8. A mobile quarterback would make this offence even more dangerous.

This is nothing new. In fact, its a blast from the past, combining pro sets with a bit of West Coast. It is the best answer to smaller outside linebackers, blitzing defenses etc.

1. For the run game, it not only provides so many better blocking options including double teams, fold blocks, and trap blocks (which need to be brought back to negate huge defense tackles by getting angles on them) it prevents the defense from keying on one running back getting the football deep every handoff, it provides lead blocking, allows an offence to pull their offensive lineman, and it allows an offence to run off tackle and wide.

2. It really sets up play action and especially the screen game...something bliitzing defenses are vulnerable against.

3. It better protects the quarterback.

4. It is the true remedy for what a few teams are trying to do right now on occasion...which is mainly using the fulllback, when used on occasion, mainly as a pass blocker or when they use a tight end, the player is an extra offensive lineman who is not a pass receiver and therefore does not have to be accounted for, in terms of pass defense. The fullback is a true fullback.

5. The tailback can be spelled off with the punt returner International player for rotation and freshness. A scat back type can create a different dimension when brought into the offence to spell off the tailback.

6. The only time I would be in a wide five receiver set would be on a second and twenty or more. The six receiver set would never see the light of day.

7. You don't need to spread the field with recievers. Instead you can stack two or three receivers to one side of the field. If the defense cheats, in terms of pass defense, you can sneak out your tight end and either your fullback or tailback to the weakside.

In summary today's CFL defenses are designed to stop the inside running attack of the spread offence and the five or six receiver formations. Big defensive tackles, nickel backs and dime backs, are spread offence negators as are blitzing defenses, dropping nine into coverage, and press man coverage, which is based upon getting to the quarterback quickly so the defender does not have to cover for long on the wide Canadian field.

So an offence should be designed to take advantage of the way CFL defenses are playing. You hurt them by running outside as well as inside, getting angles and double teaming those huge tackles or trapping or fold blocking them. You use quick hitting dive plays as well as lead blocking for the tailback and you use play action and misdirection play action. You use tight ends and fullbacks against tweener linebackers and nickel and dime backs.

You use true tight ends so defenses can't cheat against fullbacks who are only blockers and tight ends who are really non-import offensive lineman who can't make the starting five of the offensive line. You screen the hell out of blitzing teams and maximum pass protect or burn them, you buy time for your quarterback to hurt press man coverage and hurt it deep and you run against passive defenses, as opposing teams did against our defense this season.

It's time for some different offensive thinking for our Leos rather than the spread offence, with us trying to run inside almost all the time while trying to single zone or man block agaisnt big, mobile defensive tackles with no angles, or trying to throw within two seconds or less to a tightly covered receiver who is still in the start to his pass pattern, or continuously watching our quarterback getting hit and sacked and our tailback or quarterback (when Lulay is in there) being constantly spied and getting max attention.

We went back to the spread offence this season, more than we ever have in the Buono era in B.C. and the results were evident.

[Blitz]

There is an old saying that "its not the critic who counts".

So, in playing arm chair new offensive coordinator what would I do? Well first of all I would plead with Wally to give me enough money to hire the best offensive line coach I could and then:

1. I would go with a lot of pro set formations, with one and often two true tight ends who can block and run patterns and catch. This would both powerfully add to the run game and yet be able to play action out of. It would really help our offence to run off-tackle and outside more effectively and create opportunities for doublle team blocks and trap plays. The tight ends would be key players in the pass game and when I chose to, I would split one out.

2. I would recruit these types of tight ends out of American colleges with programs who utilize the tight end in their passing attack or find some NFL cuts. We would have to go with imports for these positions.

3. We could do that by playing four Nationals on the offensive line. Olofoye would be my only import offensive lineman. Hunter Stewart looked outstanding at left tackle this season, Fabian and Valli would be the guards. My first draft choice wold be a Canadian center who has played the position in college.

4. I would bring in an International fullback who can block, run, and catch. I would go two back set a lot. I would not use the fullback exclusively as a blocker. Instead he would run quick hitters against the blitz, run misdirection trap plays, and we would run a lot of counter action. He would be used for misdirection and lead blocking. He would be a key player in the sceen game including throw back screens. He could be split out as a lead blocker for bubble screens. He would be a key for play action. The fullback would be highly utilized in the passing attack, with an old West Coast offence approach to his position.

5. With a pro set focus I would have the quarterback take the handoff under center rather than being in the pistol or shotgun for the majority of snaps except for key passing downs. That would allow quick hitting run plays with trap blocking to combat big tackles. The pro set would allow us to take advantage of tweener linebackers and nickel backs who are small. They can be blocked effectively by big tight ends and good blocking fullbacks. It would allow us to run sweeps with a lead guard and the fulback as well as kick out blocks off tackle.

6. We would be a run focus, play action offence that could effectively pass out of pro sets. The tight ends would allow us the option of blocking blitzes, or run quick seam patterns. (especially with the quarterback under center). We could also send the tight end deep down the center when defenses blitz a safety.

7. The pro set would give us some real advantages of having the time to go deep against blitzing defenses, which scarees the hell out of them.

8. A mobile quarterback would make this offence even more dangerous.

This is nothing new. In fact, its a blast from the past, combining pro sets with a bit of West Coast. It is the best answer to smaller outside linebackers, blitzing defenses etc.

1. For the run game, it not only provides so many better blocking options including double teams, fold blocks, and trap blocks (which need to be brought back to negate huge defense tackles by getting angles on them) it prevents the defense from keying on one running back getting the football deep every handoff, it provides lead blocking, allows an offence to pull their offensive lineman, and it allows an offence to run off tackle and wide.

2. It really sets up play action and especially the screen game...something bliitzing defenses are vulnerable against.

3. It better protects the quarterback.

4. It is the true remedy for what a few teams are trying to do right now on occasion...which is mainly using the fulllback, when used on occasion, mainly as a pass blocker or when they use a tight end, the player is an extra offensive lineman who is not a pass receiver and therefore does not have to be accounted for, in terms of pass defense. The fullback is a true fullback.

5. The tailback can be spelled off with the punt returner International player for rotation and freshness. A scat back type can create a different dimension when brought into the offence to spell off the tailback.

6. The only time I would be in a wide five receiver set would be on a second and twenty or more. The six receiver set would never see the light of day.

7. You don't need to spread the field with recievers. Instead you can stack two or three receivers to one side of the field. If the defense cheats, in terms of pass defense, you can sneak out your tight end and either your fullback or tailback to the weakside.

In summary today's CFL defenses are designed to stop the inside running attack of the spread offence and the five or six receiver formations. Big defensive tackles, nickel backs and dime backs, are spread offence negators as are blitzing defenses, dropping nine into coverage, and press man coverage, which is based upon getting to the quarterback quickly so the defender does not have to cover for long on the wide Canadian field.

So an offence should be designed to take advantage of the way CFL defenses are playing. You hurt them by running outside as well as inside, getting angles and double teaming those huge tackles or trapping or fold blocking them. You use quick hitting dive plays as well as lead blocking for the tailback and you use play action and misdirection play action. You use tight ends and fullbacks against tweener linebackers and nickel and dime backs.

You use true tight ends so defenses can't cheat against fullbacks who are only blockers and tight ends who are really non-import offensive lineman who can't make the starting five of the offensive line. You screen the hell out of blitzing teams and maximum pass protect or burn them, you buy time for your quarterback to hurt press man coverage and hurt it deep and you run against passive defenses, as opposing teams did against our defense this season.

It's time for some different offensive thinking for our Leos rather than the spread offence, with us trying to run inside almost all the time while trying to single zone or man block agaisnt big, mobile defensive tackles with no angles, or trying to throw within two seconds or less to a tightly covered receiver who is still in the start to his pass pattern, or continuously watching our quarterback getting hit and sacked and our tailback or quarterback (when Lulay is in there) being constantly spied and getting max attention.

We went back to the spread offence this season, more than we ever have in the Buono era in B.C. and the results were evident.

[South Pender]

Re tight ends, absolutely. I've stated before that I'd like to see more tight-end formations--even double tights on some plays. Of course, we need TEs who can block effectively, have soft hands, and ideally have better-than-average speed. These guys become your possession receivers, guys who can help against the blitz. If they're really tight-end size (like 6-3 + and 230-250 lbs.), they can be very very hard to defend against. Not my intention to glorify the NFL in this, but look at New England with Gronkowski (and now Tim Wright as well in double TE sets--Hernandez was the earlier pairing). There's just no way an average-size DB can defend him.

I have fond early memories of Jim Carphin.

[TheLionKing]

All good suggestions. A couple of points. First, although the panel situational interview is far superior to an ordinary one-on-one chat (which is about all a one-on-one unstructured interview is), we don't know (a) whether the candidate would actually do what he's saying he'd do and (b) how effectively he'd carry out the action he proposes. Second, as for the "how would you beat Hufnagel" type of question, I'm not sure that any answer can be treated as unequivocally correct. It would require that the panel (or Wally) have what is undeniably the correct answer in hand to score the response. And I doubt that Wally knows for sure what the correct answer would be. Still, that kind of question can more easily be scored for really bad answers, and that might be of value. And some qualitative information might be obtainable from the response.

With respect to the first point above, one technique I've used in the assessment of senior management and executive candidates (right through to the CEO level) is the role play. It can be seen as a very high-fidelity simulation and goes one step beyond the situational or scenario-type of question in which the candidate is asked what he would do in various circumstances. With the role-play technique, the candidate is required to figure out what he should do and then actually do this. Obviously, many facets of the job cannot be assessed this way, but some--particularly interpersonal behaviors--can be. For example, you could pose the following scenario: Player A has been dogging it in practice and takes some plays off in games. How would you deal with this? You have your role-player play the part of the player in question, and have the candidate actually carry out his verbal exchange with the player. The role player will carry out the behavior of the player, protesting, justifying, pushing back, etc., and the candidate has to deal with these behaviors as well as with the original problem. This method requires good role players as part of the assessment team, but many trained management consultants and industrial psychologists are very good at this. We've always video-taped the role-play sessions and then rated the candidates' performance via a small panel afterwards. You get a great deal of good information about the candidates interpersonal style--above and beyond their handling of the specific problem--from observing the whole interaction.

What I'm describing is part of what we refer to as an Assessment Center--which is a process, not a location. The role-play technique is a widely-used exercise in assessment centers with managerial personnel, and could, I think, be used in a really thorough vetting of HC candidates. Again, I think Wally would be wise to obtain the help of some assessment experts rather than relying entirely on his own judgement this time around.

Yes, role playing is a very effective learning and assessment tool. Can be very intimidating.

[Blitz]

Re tight ends, absolutely. I've stated before that I'd like to see more tight-end formations--even double tights on some plays. Of course, we need TEs who can block effectively, have soft hands, and ideally have better-than-average speed. These guys become your possession receivers, guys who can help against the blitz. If they're really tight-end size (like 6-3 + and 230-250 lbs.), they can be very very hard to defend against. Not my intention to glorify the NFL in this, but look at New England with Gronkowski (and now Tim Wright as well in double TE sets--Hernandez was the earlier pairing). There's just no way an average-size DB can defend him.

I have fond early memories of Jim Carphin.

Absolutely South Pender. New England was a spread offensive team at one time and now they are not...they saw the defensive trends and moved away from it. Brady was almost exclusively in the pistol or the shot gun and now he takes a lot of snaps under center. Seattle also uses a lot of pro sets and Wilson takes a lot of snaps under center.

We had some great tight ends in B.C. Pat Claridge was a favorite of mine. Harry Holt had a ton of talent playing in the Vic Rapp days. Jason Clarmont lined up at tight end on a few occasions and played very well there. Its the position I always felt we should have used him. Lyle Green was a fullback/tailback who was very talented and underutilized but we lined him up at tight end at times and sent him deep. Lumbala lines up at tight end sometimes.

Of course some of us 'mature' folks remember the Grey Cup toss from Ohler to Carphin. Jimmy Young played slot and wide reciever but he also played some tight end. And the CFL had many good ones in the days that the tight end was utilized as an integral part of the offence - Herm Harrison, Peter Dalla Riva,Tony Gabriel, and Mel Profit played the position with skill and toughness.

The tight end is coming back in vogue in the NFL. Its time we considered the concept again. Perhaps we can go back to a verison of the spread in 10 years or so.

[Toppy Vann]

South Pender - fully agree that Assessment Centers pick the right candidates. Our entire exec group was put thru one required by the board and only I and the existing CEO passed muster.

An assessment center for coach selection might be useful thing but with jut 41 HC pro jobs plus a few hundred college HCs someone would need to work on it. Sports guys like many managers just go to interviews. We know it is not purrfect. Tillman pulled a rabbit in Kent Austin and then his successor Ken Miller was there and he moved to Esks and then let Richie Hall go as he lost some of the locker room and failed even with assistants in some cases IIRC and hired Kavis Reed who looked like a brilliant move - only to fail there. Not a lot GMs in the CFL with HC hiring experience left where they hired more than one or any with a long run.

Great posts on what the detailed level of what a HC needs to be able to speak to.

The ONLY problem is that a lot of the detail would only be able to be provided by CFL experienced coaches as how to rebuild this Lions team to win in THIS current CFL where defenses last year were keeping scores down. But you'd be worried you'd get a NFL type game thinker here losing vs. a Mark Trestman who took a year to really get going and as he says - he had AC at the top of his game making it easier. Trestman like Doug Flutie grasped the uniqueness of the CFL rules and took to them like a duck to water. Trestman today says the CFL game is tougher to coach in with all the nuances and movements and the clock not running down. He loved this game.