Old Bomber Fan

What I don't understand is why we consistently try to throw the ball to Dressler in double or triple coverage. He makes the catch one on one but has had difficulty in double or more coverage not to mention the liability of an interception. What is wrong with Denmark? He seldom misses if it is catchable and can get behind coverage as well as Dressler if not better. I would like to know how many throws were aimed at Dressler and Smith tonight verse Denmark. Here is a guy who was cut because these other two were signed via free agency and the Bomber had to humbly come back to ask him to play for them again. What does he do? Merely leads or is close to leading the team in receptions. And the other point about the passing game as has been mentioned here earlier we are back to Lapo's rinkie dinkie passing game. If it controls the clock and we score points okay but when the other team has nearly a 10 time of possession on us then something has to change. And that isn't saying the defense doesn't need to step up. Had they last game we would have won. This game they were terrible in virtually every aspect; pressure, turnovers, coverages and tackling. Back to square one.

While I agree the defense was not good tonight I also thought the offense wasn't very good either. Yes we had over 300 yards of offense and scored what 26 points but we couldn't maintain drives; and we constantly continue to throw those dinkie little passes. I wouldn't mind it too much if we had the game in hand or at least were controlling the clock but we do neither. Further why in the name of ....... are we throwing the ball to Dressler in double and triple coverage time and time again. Kohert dropped several balls tonight, Smith was a non event, Dressler had one good catch and run for a TD and then we have Denmark who continues to catch everything thrown his way but is seldom used. He gets behind coverage like Dressler, is not as often in double coverage as Dressler is but for some reason is not thrown the ball. I guess we were out coached in that our game plan both offense and defense wasn't good enough. We were out played as well and reality is Edmonton has a better team talent wise than we do. Can we get into the playoffs; well with a little help from others we can but if we continue to play as we did tonight we will not need a little help but rather a lot of help. Here's hoping without rose coloured glasses.

he is taking a seat alright, he is traded

Adams hasn't played well since his return to the starting roster. I mentioned this in another thread but to repeat when he wasn't playing and Randle was hurt along with Harris the rookies really shone. When Randle came back he had a tough time initially but seems to have righted the ship. Harris isn't playing thank goodness as Loffler is far superior. And well for Adams he simply isn't as good a Fredrick and has demonstrated this since his return. I think he sealed the deal last game. And frankly wait and see if we don't move Richardson???? (no 25). He was picked on and cost us a lot during that last game. Time will tell

its not old-timers disease simply selective memory....forgot what I was about to say!

I am a dinosaur what's wrong with that! LOL

Reading Doug Brown's column today and believe he hit it bang on. We often criticized Willy's stats because most came in garbage time. Well I guess one could draw the same conclusion in this game; game out of hand take the foot off the peddle only to put it back on when the game was on the line. However with that said they did play much better overall in the second half. This team cannot get behind that much on any of the teams left to play and certainly not in the playoffs should they get there. Special teams were bad; think Adams may have played himself off the starting roster for next game as did Johnson. What happened to the rookies that picked up this defense when the "starters" got hurt; they covered man to man much better than the current group. In any event as has been said the issues are fixable; the coaches need to have this team better prepared to play; the players have to be better prepared to play and they have to realize that playing 40 or 50 mins a game will not get it done in this league on most nights.

Believe in all honesty that he should have been the first! Notwithstanding I'm glad to see he will be included. I remember watching him play both offense and defense and then switch to become one of if not the most successful coach in Winnipeg Blue Bomber history. Always wondered why he wasn't there in the beginning but very happy he is there now. A great man, a great motivator, a great player, a great coach and above all a great human being. Congratulations

Great game to watch especially the 2nd half. Thought the D played okay but felt that Johnson was picked on a lot and he got burnt several times. Maybe it is time to go back to one of the rookies that played so well when the "starters" where injured. For that matter Adams did not do himself any favours either. What about Heith and Merrick (I think that is who I'm referring to).

Amazing how success in the red zone stimulates the entire team finally they are scoring TDs instead of field goals go bombers go

I agree with Bud Grant but don't forget Jack Jacobs as well. If we are talking about people and players who made the Bombers who they are then these two have to be considered. Without Jacobs the old stadium would not have been built and without Grant we would be what 4 Grey Cups short!

I am having a difficult time reading the comments about this incident. First and foremost the behaviour whatever degree it accelerated to is totally unacceptable and anyone who would argue for it as several here have done simply shows how insignificant they consider another person's rights to attend and enjoy a sporting event. Everyone who attends an event such as this is entitled to safety and freedom of this type of action. To suggest it is okay and that it isn't the true whole story is not the point; the point is it happened to whatever degree and that is totally unacceptable. Yes it unfortunate that the security people did not get involved but then again I have been at many games in the past where they never get involved but are simply a presence. When intervention is required they call for the police. But again I digress. The Blue Bombers advocate drinking and as a result drunks and disruptive behaviour. It is hard to believe they cut off liquor sales after the 3rd quarter yet keep the rum hut over for the "traffic buster" party after the game. Do they believe this will ease the traffic situation, perhaps yes but what about those who are now adding to their drinking and then driving afterwards? Makes me wonder. On their side though they have tried to contain those who are a little more disruptive by putting them in the end zone in one section; used to be section S I believe. So now they can build their beer snake and throw beer on like minded people rather than those who come to watch the game and unfortunately are seated in that section. I'm sure you think by this that I do not drink.. far from it but I do so responsibly. Many others do the same but unfortunately it is those who simply go to games to get drunk and be disruptive. I guess it is in their nature unfortunately. If the Blue Bombers want to continue to grow the attendance at their games they have to deal with this type of situation in a more proactive way. Now you will say how, I guess because it is their building they can put in surveillance camera around the stadium. They could also attempt to curtail the drinking somewhat however I'm sure that would result in more negative comments than this post will. Nonetheless the biggest thing that can be done, at least in my opinion, is for the fans to control themselves. Should someone with "sound mind" see such an event unfolding, step in and either attempt to quell the situation or call security. That is perhaps the most simple situation. We are not all obnoxious drunks even though we have our loyalty to the Bombers, we can make a difference. Why leave it to the Bombers etc., we can diffuse a situation quickly especially if we are acting with a group or make the incident obvious to those many around the area. If we want we can stop this type of action but I guess it is up to each of us to make that decision. Just my opinion

Well they won and great on them!!! The offense even scored 2 TDs which is great, both times in the red zone. BUT the offense has to be more productive and have to sustain drives better especially against BC or Calgary. Oh and what a turn of events.... dress Smith, Smith gets injured can't finish the game... welcome back Denmark. Hopefully it isn't serious to any of those who were injured.... seemed to be a lot this game. BUT a win is a win is a win... taking it and hoping for a better performance from the offense next game.

Actually not mad just can't spell or pronounce his name can tell you it starts with Bell.... and many on this site have added fool at the end!!!

I would disagree that smith is better than Denmark and that he tails off. I am questioning why he is tailing off in catches. He seldom misses and YAC seem good. Could it be that LaPO or the other idiot simply went away from him or perhaps was it that Willy couldn't wait to throw deep or couldn't??? I don't know I only know that when he came back he had a similar game to McDuffie and rescued the team. Now he is sitting.

I also questioned the decision based on a few things; first game back for Denmark what did he do..... something like 150 and 2 TDs (I think); second game another TD and then as has been mentioned not as much lately. Wondering if that is play calling or what seems strange a guy is "go to" for two games then nothing really for awhile. Possible usage? I for one would like to see Denmark, Smith and Dressler along with Kohert and Sheppard or McDuffie. Hard for me to believe that Sheppard is better or McDuffie is better than Denmark but again as was mentioned the others do play other roles on the team. In my opinion our returner should be Fogg and should he get tired or nicked then we have some returning DBs to consider, after all they started infront of Fogg in the beginning. Just my opinion but nice problem to have.

Ah come on guys I'm not that old haven't hit the century mark yet but getting close! I do agree that it is nice while these guys are around but my big fear is that those who have "made" this organization will be missed simply because those who make the decisions have not been around long enough to remember, like some of us! In any event it is a good program and long overdue.

Good for Brock however a few comments here are puzzling but respected. First best QB Bomber ever had?? Well must have been from a younger fan as I remember Indian Jack before him and one Tom Clements who we traded for. Won a Grey cup or two with them both not so sure about Brock. Both the former left the city with positive legacies and fond memories; think I remember Brock leaving by saying bad things about Winnipeg and our zoo? Guess those things are forgiven. In any event congrats to him and hopefully the powers to be will remember the old timers that brought fame and fortune to the Bombers in the early days; they equally deserve recognition; perhaps a look into the history books of the Bombers is in order for this committee. Just my opinion and not trying to reduce the importance of the newer generations of players simply that there are others who in this case were much more successful that Mr. Brock.

I don't believe stating an opinion where the kicker gets 75% of the teams points and some similar percentage the previous game, by the way when we stopped throwing deep, is gloom and doom. Merely saying yes the win is great but if this is the formula you think will continue to win games I think you will be disappointed. Does that mean I don't want them to win or that I am not a fan, no it simply is looking at history and logic, at least in my humble opinion. I would love to be wrong and yes we have a 5 game winning streak but all five games have not been won by the kicker. If my memory serves me correctly the first 2 were blow outs in the sense all three phases played lights out. Not so much the past 2 games even though we got over 300 yds of offense. Very ineffective in the red zone, and 1 TD. That is not a winning performance in most instances but I do respect your opinions.

No one is saying we suck simply that if you think we will continue to win with this type of offense I'm afraid you will be sorely disappointed. Nothing to do with sucking at all.

no he couldn't kick a convert on TD resulting from a poor punt coverage by our ST.

I would disagree with you in that if you go back to the first 3 games of this winning streak they were throwing the ball downfield more than once or twice a game and while they did not complete them all, they did stretch the defense and that is the point imo. Throwing it once or twice doesn't really do it and today I don't think the rinkie dink did a lot to run the clock until late in the 4th quarter when Harris started running with a vengeance. I believe the time of possession in the first half, certainly the first quarter was 2-1 for Sask. The Bombers did close the gap but if we think we will win many more, save the Banjo bowl with this type of offense I'm afraid we will be sorely disappointed.

We didn't win this game, Sask kicker couldn't win it for Sask.

Now before anyone gets too excited let me first congratulate the Bombers for winning yet again. Now let me make an observation that I believe is held by many others. The bomber offense has gotten away from the long throw and now reverted back to Lapo's short game. I believe this game we threw the ball downfield (I'm saying more than 10 yards) once! That resulted in an 82 yard touchdown. The rest were these short 3-5 yard passes that resulted in numerous 2 and outs. That put the pressure on the defense who once again came up big but were hurting in the second half where Sask reeled off 11 straight points and overcame a 19-0 deficit. We won the game only because the Sask kicker could not kick a field goal or a convert and our kicker was nearly perfect. Yes we can rely on Medlock and yes we can rely on the defense but for how long. A word to Lapo... ditch the short game nonsense and at least test the opposition downfield! Your QB in the post game so said as much..... luckily we had Medlock because without him we would not have won that game. Shake your head and get back to what got you on this streak. Willy can throw the short stuff, it was Nichol's ability to throw downfield that started this run. And finally what happened to Denmark. Here was a guy who came in when the going was tough, put up great numbers in two games back to back to lead the Bombers and all of a sudden he is missing in action. I repeat, everything thrown his way that is catchable, he catches what is wrong with this picture of him getting what 2 throws all game?????

Oh yes I do agree with your comment Noeller however if we don't at least attempt it once or twice during the game then in essence the defense has made you one dimensional in that you are just rinkie dinking them and yes you may win the time of possession or you may not. Throwing a 6 yard pass expecting to get 10 yards has in the past led us to many 2 and outs and thus the time of possession reverts to the opposition and then the wear and tear on the defense shows in the latter part of the game. We need only to look at the first 5 games of the season to verify this result. However when Nichols came in he did push it downfield and IMO at least it did open up some of the other stuff. Just my opinion and of course there are a lot of "what ifs" in every game.