Fan Boy

I am not sure you have this fanatic thing worked out yet. You are supposed to breathe fire and demand coaches, general managers, presidents, beer sellers and peanut hawkers to be fired every year until a good team appears or at least until moral is better.
 
I know it is frustrating to be a bomber fan but there has been a lot of churn in coaches and managers over the years but this bunch seems like the best we've seen for a long while, maybe not everyone on the staff but at least as a whole. Every time a new management person is put in place there is an adjustment period. Players are different. Their time is now and when they start to Romby you have to get rid of them. (I am glad we don't have motorcycle guy and "no shotgun" guy by the way sometimes change is necessary. 

I feel the need to give a "small c" congratulations to everyone who made the Etcheverry failure prediction.  Be correct on a less obvious call and I'll lick and preen you like you want.
 
TBieber's well-researched point though is all you need to know about the Bombers, and has little to do with Etch.  3-0 when winning the turnover battle, 3-8 when losing it.  Guys, we're winning more than a third of games where we turn the ball over more than the opposition, so technically speaking we are doing better than we should be.  More importantly, we've lost the turnover battle in 11 of 15 games.  That's why we're not a playoff team.
 
Give us a DC with a better scheme, and some better players in 2015, and we MIGHT gain 2-3 defensive turnovers... but to put it all on Etch is wrong.  Special teams in particular we've had many turnovers.  I can't find stats on it, but we have to be at or near the top of the league in ST turnovers.  We're a young team on offense, and our players need to progress over the offseason, specifically in playing well without making as many poor decisions with the football. 
 
Want a defence that is less predictable, and less vulnerable to big backs and dump-offs over the middle?  Fire Etch.  But if what we want is to win games... it starts with NOT TURNING THE DAMN BALL OVER AS MUCH.

Bombers have 42 turnovers, and given up 94 points off of them.
 
In wins: 14 turnovers (2.3/g), 16 points off (2.7/g)
In losses: 28 turnovers (3.1/g), 78 points off (8.7/g)
 
Offence has turned the ball over atleast once in every game with a breakdown of:
1 - 1
2 - 8
3 - 3
4+ - 3
 
Bombers have 28 takeaways, and scored 69 points off of them.
 
In wins: 16 takeaways (2.7/g), 53 points off (8.8/g)
In losses: 12 takeaways (1.3/g), 16 points off (2.7/g)
 
Defence has taken the ball away in 12 of 15 games, with a breakdown of:
1 - 4
2 - 3
3 - 3
4+ - 2
 
The Bombers are 3-0 in games with less turnovers. That's obvious, everyone knows that teams are more likely to win.
 
Here's the issue. They're 3-0 in games with less turnovers and they've played 15.... They have lost the turnover battle in 11 of those other 12 games and have a record of 3-8.
 
Now, if it was 1 turnover per game and they were losing, blame the defence perhaps for not doing their share in the turnover battle. But when - in 14 games, you have turned the ball over multiple times, that is clearly a problem.
 
Let's make that clear.
 
The Bombers have a record of 3-8 when losing the turnover battle. The rest of the league is 4-49. Four wins. The Bombers have three.
 
While the defence hasn't been spectacular, they have certainly done their job in having the Bombers at 6 wins, when they should, or could have 3 or 4.

True if you've only watched like 3 games. 
 
Here are our losses, keep in mind not all points score for the other team were because of the D either, special teams and offensive **** ups lead to several points scored.. Not an ETCH fan and predicted the same but..... to be  fair...
 
26-3 Edmonton 3 points for our offense? Yeah let's blame ETCH
23-17 SASK, that was the game where we turned the ball over 5 times, but let's blame the D
38-21 Toronto, that was on a tuesday after we played SASK, 3 or 4 days later... D was gassed by the 4th but kept the team in it up until that point
35-30 sask in sask... Labour Day, Offense had a chance but couldn't move the ball, lets blame the d tho
30-24 sask, banjo bowl, turnovers cost us that game but again let's blame the d
26-9 vs bc in bc, Willy got hurt and that game was close until the 4th quarter, that was when our offense couldn't move the ball at all once willy got hurt, let's again blame the D tho
16-11 vs hamilton, remember that one? had a chance to win on the last play of the game but didn't, let's blame the D though even though our offense couldn't score 2 touchdowns
 
The last 2 games have been blowouts so those 2 teams, yeah... they have sucked but those 2 games is not how the season has gone for us really
 
4 of 9 losses were by like 6 points or less
2 of our losses, actually 3 if i include the last edmonton game, we didn't score a TD all game
 
How can we blame the D again??
 
Like i said, not an ETCH fan but blaming the D when the offense hasn't scored a touchdown in 3 of our losses and 4 of our losses were by 6 points or less?? I dunno about that one. 
 
I'm not gonna go through all those game stats but... Just based on what i recall, just eliminating our own offensive and special team mistakes, we probably could have won 4 of those games if not more, when you lose 4 games by 6 or less and you are turning over the ball lots and making special teams mistakes, pretty tough to blame the D. 
 
I'm not an ETCH fan at all and thought it would be like this too but to ignore the offensive struggles the team has had is just blaming etch cuz you don't like guy, i don't like the guy either but... just because i don't like him doesn't mean i'm going to ignore the bigger issues we have. 
 
Is the D a problem? i suppose so, but is the offense a bigger problem? Yes it is and if you refuse to see that or admit that, then i don't know what to say
 
4 losses by 6 or less, 3 losses we didn't score an offensive td all game.. How can we blame the D exactly? maybe for 2 losses we can blame the D but when the offense can't score touchdowns in 3 of those games and we turned the ball over multiple times in those 4 games we lost by 6 or less, not sure how the D and Etch get the blame. 
 
Ignoring the last 2 games because most the season wasn't like that
 
in 7 losses we have given up an average of about 28 points a game, in those 7 losses, we have scored an average of about 16 points a game. 16.5 really.
 
How can you blame the D for the majority of those losses when the Offense has only average 16.5 points a game in those losses. 16.5 points won't win you many games at all. 
 
Really wish i could find the stat on how many turnovers we have had and how many points it cost us in those 7 losses, cuz my guess.. just based on memory, it's quite a bit for sure. Can go on and on about the last 2 games but those last 2 games isn't what we've seen this season really, well it is, but not in terms of what the defense has done this season, those last 2 games are more of a reflection of what the offense hasn't done this season. 

But it does not impede the ability to hold which is essential to every successful lineman.

If by cash grab you mean they are hoping people buy it, then sure.  But the negative connotation of cash grab does not apply here at all.  A cash grab is when photo radar is set up North Bound Kenaston at 7pm with no construction happening and no construction impedment to the roadway and yet the speed limit is artificially reduced due to the invisible construction and people are being picked off for doube fine tickets.  Thats a cash grab.  Thats forcing you to give money in a scenario orchestrated solely with the intent of taking your money in a situation in which you'd otherwise not give it.
 
Designing new jerseys as part of a league wide marketing effort is not a cash grab.