Lionbackers.com

Migs wrote:

LFITQ wrote:Jim Mullin: as a media colleague of Elliot Friedman's, in his blog he talks about how Wally has "condoned" this hit, here's the exact quote:

Elliot Friedman wrote:The Lions. The team might think it's a winner because Jimenez will be available should it get to the Grey Cup, but that's not the case. Wally Buono is one of the greatest -- if not the greatest -- coach in the league's history. But he tarnishes his and the organization's image by condoning this. Personally, I believe that the O-line tactics were overblown for much of this season. But Jimenez went way too far.

Can you shed some light on where he is getting that Wally condones this hit? We know that Wally is the one who has brought forth proposals in the last two years to the CFL Rules committee to get this type of hit made illegal. So I'm not sure where this "condoning" is coming from? Can you shed some light on it as a respected media person?

If Wally dresses Jimenez on Sunday then that is the same thing as him condoning what happened.

Tillman must really condone drunk driving then because he signed Hakim Hill when he already had three convictions.

LFITQ wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:

LFITQ wrote:
Except that if it was BEFORE the whistle it would have been a legal play. Kind of like how Rider fans harp on the idea that the Perry hit on DD was deemed legal. Just like the actions of the Rider linemen was deemed illegal and deemed an ejection. Oh wait!! Some rider fans said that because there was no conclusive video evidence it was obviously an improper ejection and the Riders were wronged! Kinda like how the League deemed the hit on Burris as being legal. That one didn't have any controversy either.

I'm undecided on what the play is at simply because I have not seen any video evidence to this point. If the play happened during the whistle then it may well be able to be called a legal hit. Unike some fans, I'm unwilling to just take the League's word for it. If anything the League's past decisions this year have shown they are anything but consistent nor necessarily making the right choices. Instead they have a penchant for making the wrong call. So now all we have is the word of a ref. I'm gonna guess that Jiminez's Lawyer believes he has a chance of getting it overturned otherwise this wouldn't go this far as Jiminez is taking the risk that he may lose out on a Grey Cup paycheque by taking this route.

If I'm Waly, Jiminez may not play anyhow simply because Wally has a rule that if you don't practice you don't play. And if I'm Wally I can't guarantee that Jiminez is going to be available for the WDF, so I'm practicing with his replacement instead.

well, I for one never defended the rider players anywhere or faulted any penalties, etc. As for when the whistle blew. Are you saying anything goes. So if the play is happening on the other side of the field, down field, and a player decides to viciously take out another with a high risk of injury action, its ok before the whistle? Its not always about the whistle. Just like such things as late hit on QB,etc.

No I'm not saying it is anything goes. I'm saying the rules are there and you play within the rules. The fact is the type of hit is a LEGAL block. The only question here is WHEN did it happen. If it happened AFTER the whistle, then yes throw the book at him. However, there has been NO evidence provided publically to show exactly what happened. So we have the word of the ref vs. the word of Jiminez. It is currently ONLY a he said/she said thing. And let's face it, EVERY fan has had their grumblings with the refs, so excuse me if I don't find them the most reliable judge at this point. Remember the Nowacki "non-catch"? Riders had the same issue with their game against Hamilton. They had 2 linemen thrown out of the game and they were looking for corroborating video evidence of which their wasn't any. So all the League had to go on then was the report of the ref. Look at the outburst that came from Riderville on that one. Here we have the same thing. Just the word of an umpire to say it was illegal - no one has even seen the play. Look at the hit on Burris, many believed that one was done after he was out of bounds and it tore his shoulder. Even with video evidence the League deemed that was a legal hit, but many would disagree. Look at the Trey Young hit on Buck Pierce, where many believed that was a piling on penalty but nothing happened and that injured Buck's shoulder and he hasn't really been back. In that same game Trey Young also took out Geroy simon and no call on that one either.

The problem here is the credibility of the League based on their past performance over the season. All I am saying is I will withhold judgement on the hit until I see something myself. Until then, the player has every right to pursue all avenues open to him to continue to make a living. It's why there is a system there in the first place. The very fact there is an appeal process shows that sometimes the League does get it wrong in these matters. Otherwise it would just be over after the initial decision by the commish.

I hear what you say. I just think that for one thing, his rep speaks volumes. The opinions of football people who saw it speak volumes. Hearing witnesses say that it happened far enough away from the play\ball carrier that it was not needed speaks volumes. That the league\refs have screwed up in many other cases isnt enough of a counter IMO.

LFITQ wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:

Migs wrote: If Wally dresses Jimenez on Sunday then that is the same thing as him condoning what happened.

exactly. and wallys own words of being more concerned about if it was a legal play, ie before the whistle, is also quite telling of his condoning it. Before the whistle or not, it was typical jiminez dirty cheap shot.

Except that if it was BEFORE the whistle it would have been a legal play. Kind of like how Rider fans harp on the idea that the Perry hit on DD was deemed legal. Just like the actions of the Rider linemen was deemed illegal and deemed an ejection. Oh wait!! Some rider fans said that because there was no conclusive video evidence it was obviously an improper ejection and the Riders were wronged! Kinda like how the League deemed the hit on Burris as being legal. That one didn't have any controversy either.

I'm undecided on what the play is at simply because I have not seen any video evidence to this point. If the play happened during the whistle then it may well be able to be called a legal hit. Unike some fans, I'm unwilling to just take the League's word for it. If anything the League's past decisions this year have shown they are anything but consistent nor necessarily making the right choices. Instead they have a penchant for making the wrong call. So now all we have is the word of a ref. I'm gonna guess that Jiminez's Lawyer believes he has a chance of getting it overturned otherwise this wouldn't go this far as Jiminez is taking the risk that he may lose out on a Grey Cup paycheque by taking this route.

If I'm Waly, Jiminez may not play anyhow simply because Wally has a rule that if you don't practice you don't play. And if I'm Wally I can't guarantee that Jiminez is going to be available for the WDF, so I'm practicing with his replacement instead.

Chop block is illegal before or after the whistle.

Tighthead wrote:

Migs wrote:

LFITQ wrote:Jim Mullin: as a media colleague of Elliot Friedman's, in his blog he talks about how Wally has "condoned" this hit, here's the exact quote:



Can you shed some light on where he is getting that Wally condones this hit? We know that Wally is the one who has brought forth proposals in the last two years to the CFL Rules committee to get this type of hit made illegal. So I'm not sure where this "condoning" is coming from? Can you shed some light on it as a respected media person?

If Wally dresses Jimenez on Sunday then that is the same thing as him condoning what happened.

Tillman must really condone drunk driving then because he signed Hakim Hill when he already had three convictions.

Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

Blue In BC wrote:

LFITQ wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:exactly. and wallys own words of being more concerned about if it was a legal play, ie before the whistle, is also quite telling of his condoning it. Before the whistle or not, it was typical jiminez dirty cheap shot.

Except that if it was BEFORE the whistle it would have been a legal play. Kind of like how Rider fans harp on the idea that the Perry hit on DD was deemed legal. Just like the actions of the Rider linemen was deemed illegal and deemed an ejection. Oh wait!! Some rider fans said that because there was no conclusive video evidence it was obviously an improper ejection and the Riders were wronged! Kinda like how the League deemed the hit on Burris as being legal. That one didn't have any controversy either.

I'm undecided on what the play is at simply because I have not seen any video evidence to this point. If the play happened during the whistle then it may well be able to be called a legal hit. Unike some fans, I'm unwilling to just take the League's word for it. If anything the League's past decisions this year have shown they are anything but consistent nor necessarily making the right choices. Instead they have a penchant for making the wrong call. So now all we have is the word of a ref. I'm gonna guess that Jiminez's Lawyer believes he has a chance of getting it overturned otherwise this wouldn't go this far as Jiminez is taking the risk that he may lose out on a Grey Cup paycheque by taking this route.

If I'm Waly, Jiminez may not play anyhow simply because Wally has a rule that if you don't practice you don't play. And if I'm Wally I can't guarantee that Jiminez is going to be available for the WDF, so I'm practicing with his replacement instead.

Chop block is illegal before or after the whistle.

Do you know it was a chop block for sure?? This would be the first I have heard that he was actually engaged with another lineman at the time of the hit. If that is the case then yes it is a penalty. However, that would probably have meant that if he was engaged with another lineman that it happened BEFORE the whistle or else the other Lions lineman that he was engaged with would have also gotten at least an unnecessary roughness penalty.

CFL rule book wrote: Article7 – Chop Blocking
Chop blocking means contacting an opponent at or below the knees at the
time that opponent is already being engaged by another player, with or
without actual physical contact.

KnowItAll wrote:Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

Stui wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

Begrudgingly I'd have to agree with you. It sure was annoying to hear him sound off about the dirty BC Lions for days on end but if the shoe was on the other foot and he was going to bat wearing orange instead of green I'd probably applaud him for it.

No Ordinary Joe wrote:

Stui wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

Begrudgingly I'd have to agree with you. It sure was annoying to hear him sound off about the dirty BC Lions for days on end but if the shoe was on the other foot and he was going to bat wearing orange instead of green I'd probably applaud him for it.

yeah, only reason I know, is cuz I managed to have a conversation with him, when he was wearing our colours. Very smart, very articulate, calculating individual.

Stui wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

he dissed paopao.

Migs wrote: hell I just finished paying a $200 dollar speeding ticket because......guess what???........I was speeding.

SPEEDING ! WOW .I never thought combines could go that fast .

If our eyes are truely on the prize as we all should be focused on,

We will be the team that we always knew we were, the team who went out as a team together and had that Chinese supper together, who broke curfew and who had to face the coaches next day, the same guys who have always had their fans love at stake since beginning to end and preseason.

Now we will see that great character that has more truth than lies, in as much as those we have voices to roar!!!!

Roar Lions You Lions Roar!

KnowItAll wrote:

Stui wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:Tillman is a pissant anyhow.

No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

he dissed paopao.

Uh, yeah, and? PaoPao was a pissant. He let some of our "best" go, because he didn't think they were worth paying more money to, and so his ego won, over sanity. He proved he couldn't coach at two attempts at it. BC and Ottawa, where Tillman gave him a SECOND CHANCE!! He was and is useless as a head coach. Sorry there's no way to sugar coat it, but there it is.

wildthing wrote:

Stui wrote:Uhhhhh....

wildthing wrote:... as it will be BC's last this year and possibly Jiminez's last ever.

Last ever? And that's coming from where exactly?

well he took a costly suspension at the wrong time of the year, he has missed key blocks resulting in injury to your main QB, could be the straw that costs him his job. It is merely speculation but it is a very good reason to ensure the suspension is taken care of this year

Yeah lets see this line has allowed the fewest sacks and has provided enough holes for Smith to lead the league in rushing, but because he missed one block he is going to be replaced. At this rate the whole league will be replacing offensive lineman. You are either grasping at straws Wildthing or are uninformed?

Stui wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:

Stui wrote:
No, don't be so quick to put Tillman down. He's a very smart football man. When he does something that seems like whining, or complaining overly loudly, he's always working an angle. Usually to get the league's attention. The only thing getting fined means to him, is that he was heard.

And regardless of what it was about, the league will take note, if for no other reason, than to cover their collective asses, just in case Tillman "was right".

I would put him 2nd, only to our own Bob Ackles.

he dissed paopao.

Uh, yeah, and? PaoPao was a pissant. He let some of our "best" go, because he didn't think they were worth paying more money to, and so his ego won, over sanity. He proved he couldn't coach at two attempts at it. BC and Ottawa, where Tillman gave him a SECOND CHANCE!! He was and is useless as a head coach. Sorry there's no way to sugar coat it, but there it is.

I wont waste time and effort trying to defend his coaching, which I think I can, but bad coaching does not a pissant make. As a human being, Tillman isnt fit to kiss Joes pig manure covered mukluks.

KnowItAll wrote:I wont waste time and effort trying to defend his coaching, which I think I can, but bad coaching does not a pissant make. As a human being, Tillman isnt fit to kiss Joes pig manure covered mukluks.

Shame. I'd love to shoot you down at every point. Listen, when he played he was good. REALLY GOOD. By the time he got around to coaching, he wasn't anymore. The game had changed, but he hadn't updated, nor did he have any interest or intention to admit the game had changed. As with losing some of our top guns (no, he didn't lose them, he let them go because he didn't think our top performers deserved a pay raise. And, QUOTE, "I don't think they're worth it, so they can go if they like. I'm in charge here" UNQUOTE, his ego was what, in the end, killed his head coaching career. Yeah, like Darren Flutie so wasn't worth it, eh?!!? He didn't just decide to up and leave, he asked for a raise on his new contract, PaoPao said "no way, and if you don't like that you can go elsewhere" so he did. Yeah, that was some real brains behind being a head coach. And the list just keeps going on. So while he may be a great guy outside of football, and in his playing days was a good QB, he is unable to perform as a head coach.

Need I bring up the "paper plane' incident in Ottawa? I can if you like. I have a tonne of CFL history, and mostly relating to BC Lions, but have other snippets I can quote.

He was added to our wall of fame, because of his play as our QB, not because of his head coaching. He came out of a free agent camp in uhhh.. '78 if memory serves, and studied under our brilliant all-star Jerry Tagge. And it was either '79 or '80 that he played the latter half of the season, took over the starting job the next season, and led the club in passing for 3 straight years. He was back and forth with the Lions after his playing days. Temporarily came outta retirement in uhhh.. IIRC '91 to split time with Doug Flutie. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, combined they threw for some ridiculous number over 5,000 yards. So yeah, he was a good, hell, I'll even go as far as saying very good/great QB, but coaching is just not his thing. After Ottawa, he went to Hamilton as the offensive coordinator, but was fired from that job as well.

Sorry, don't get me wrong. Outside of football, you'd be hard pressed to find a nicer guy. Hell, look at the Hawaiian shirt send off he was allowed in Ottawa for his last game. That was done, because of him being such a nice guy. I'll even go as far to say in whatever community he lives in, he's probably a "pillar" of the community. He's just that nice, and that caring. But we're talking football here, not outside of football. And he was just never cut out to be a coach. Couldn't let go of his egotistical problems. Shame, as he might have proved to be a good coach, utilizing everything he'd learned and employed as a QB.

And exactly where do you get off saying that about Tillman? You know him outside of football? You may be correct, but the Eric Tillman I knew when he was here in BC, also cared about the community, and tried to get them more involved with the team, and vice-versa.

So, while I'm not in love with Eric Tillman, I will defend him, based on the guy I got to know here, both inside and outside of football. I was involved with Junior football in BC, and wrote him a letter, asking if he could give me some advice/guidance for some things, and he was more than obliging. I had several meetings/lunches/coffees with him. This is also how I know how smart, articulate and calculating he is.

The stuff I've noted about PaoPao is actual fact, and if searched on the Internet, will be suported.

As I say, I'm not IN ANY WAY attacking the man personally, only as a coach. He is, apparently, a very caring, nuturing individual, who unfortunately couldn't carry that over as a coach. And yes, you do have to be hard-assed as a head coach. But you do also have to employ those civilian attributes at the right times.

And in closing, I will agree with you that I shouldn't have labeled him a pissant. Not warranted. But then again, neither was the labeling of Tillman with the same tag.