Jump to content

Dragon37

Members
  • Posts

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dragon37

  1. 6 hours ago, Slingin Sammy said:



    RB
    Harris with LaFrance backing up.  Flanders doesn't look like he'll be on the game-day roster, (no 1st team reps and no ST reps)



     

    With Hardrick back and continuing with 3 import receivers Flanders will sit. I don’t even know why they even played him last week when they totally misused him and his skill set. Personally, I would like to see Thompkins  sit and Petermann and Flanders on the starting roster. 

  2. 6 hours ago, trueBlue83 said:

    if Nichols is having even a half decent game, O'Shea will let him ride it out to the full extent and try and build up any shred of confidence he can.  It's clear Streveler is going to be nothing but an absolute last resort.

    To be fair though Winnipeg isn’t the only team that does this. Dickenson does it with Bo. Trestman has done it with almost every QB. Berry did it with Glenn in 2007. Campbell does it a ton with Harris. I, for one, have long believed that if your starter hits a wall or if a game is decided one way or another throw your #2 in because you never know when he may actually be needed to start. No better example is needed than the 2007 Bombers. Berry had more than one chance in the last few games to give Dinwiddie some meaningful reps and he didn’t as a result when presented with a a choice of rushing for a first down or throwing the win away he threw the ball into a trap and the one sure GC win died. Right now, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Calgary are risking the same scenario and we all have known for 5 years that O’Shea would rather watch the team flounder than pull QBs or most of his starters out than actually develop the young guys. While I disagree with most here about starting Streveler I am all for him getting more meaningful reps in the game. I also don’t agree that the QB alone is our problem. I have some other theories but not being a fly on the wall in the dressing room and what not they remain theories. 

  3. 7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

    Not talking about you, but there are people here who seem to have flipped from cheering for the Bombers to cheering for certain people to be fired. It's the same people as always. They are just the type of fans who only show up when things are miserable and they cheer for firings cause that's the type of fan they are. I feel sorry for them truthfully. Going through life that angry and miserable....

    Get what you are saying and I don’t doubt that you indeed know people personally that do this but I would have to assume that you don’t know everyone here personally so you can’t assume that all us folks that are pessimistic aren’t at every game cheering the Blue on. I wouldn’t doubt there are fans here that don’t or can’t go to games. Are they less of a fan. Fans can be fickle creatures. Look at BC their crowds are tiny but they have mostly been a good team. Look at baseball and how fast the audience thins out as teams drop out of contention. I would even the Goldeyes don’t pack them in like they used to. Getting back the the Bombers, it isn’t a cheap night out so I fully understand that people don’t want to come if there is doubt about a win. Certainly I enjoy the game a lot more when they are winning. Heck until the Jets were gone a lot of the supposed Jets fans weren’t at games. I say let the fans gripe if they want. It certainly you know you are faithful who cares what others do? Let’s direct our efforts to find ALL the team’s weaknesses and imploring our club to try and change for the better.

  4. 7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    Just so you know the comments I made were for The Source & not you. 

    Understood. I was just hoping to head off any more ill will I don’t know TheSource personally and I can fully understand making judgements on the person based on the posts God knows I’ve done it. For all I know you may be right but I would like to hope you are not.  It sucks to have fan against fan let’s hope that the Bombers pull out of this funk and prove the more optimistic fans here right. I have absolutely no problem eating crow :)

  5. 1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

    Holy ****. I sometimes think I'm too negative here calling for the firing of MOS & his staff if things don't improve which truly bothers me but you take the cake. I at least, hope the Bombers turn it around while you hope they lose every game by 50 points.  It's crazy some of the things you say while pretending to be a Bomber fan, my God.  All you do is talk trash.

    Who doesn't want them to turn it around? Some of us though just can't see it at the moment. I know it gets frustrating but always questioning who is or isn't a fan is just not productive. Walk away or respond with your reasoning to the contents of the post. It is way more satisfying. I know folks here and other forums have accused me of not being a fan in the past and it hurts because when my father and got our season tickets again around 2003 I haven't missed a game. We also had season tickets for several years before and attend plenty of games in between. We went to all home playoff tilts even the one where what was it 12000 and change showed up.

    Yeah I get negative but it's frustration talking and what also fuels that is not only the accusations that I am not a fan but the failure to look deeper into what problems there are and see if we cannot agree on how the team should proceed. yes we are not always going to agree but dumping crap all on a QB, safety, coaching, or whatever isn't always the solution. I don't think we have all the right players, sure, and I agree Nichols isn't the Nichol of early last year. However, at the same time I see things that are not all his fault either because our back-ups have had similar issues. Or other facets of the offense that have little to do with the QB are fairly consistent. IS it just Nichols, is lapo, is some other flavour of the day? This is a team sport and as a team they have lost four straight and have been unable to compete for 60 minutes in all but one game this year and Nichols.

    Anyway, must end the rant and get back to work. I hope you all have a great day.

  6. 1 hour ago, trueBlue83 said:

    Toronto won't win 3 more games this season.  I don't think SK is going to have a stellar close either.  If BC gets on a little run, Bombers, who were a legit Grey Cup contender according to all of the so called experts,  could be in tough to make it to the dance.

    At this point I think both Bombers and TO are going to be hard pressed to win 3. BC could but they need to be more consistent on offence and their D has to continue to be lights out. Saskatchewan needs offence to get them through but realistically they only need two more wins.   BC, Winnipeg, and Saskatchewan are all one and dones at this point. IMHO 

  7. 23 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

    I think we gotta go further back than that, cause they turned on Khari too, they turned on Bell, they turned on everyone who played before Bell showed up. That's the way Bomber fans are. Fickle bunch with not patience for anything.

    True. That’s why I would only rotate him in. Of course that won’t happen. 

  8. 11 hours ago, 17to85 said:

    beating the bombers who started off like 7-0 or something. It's the CFL, doesn't matter what you do in the regular season, only matters what you do in the fall. 

    And so far they are 0 for 2, haven’t beaten a .500+ team, and BC is playing very well defensively and have a much more threatening set of receivers. The Bombers have to start walking the walk now because the rest of the west is currently jogging into the horizon. People talk about winning a few more games. Well they are gonna have to do better than that because BC has the upper hand right now and certainly will be winning more games.

  9. On 2018-09-16 at 12:09 PM, NorthernSkunk said:

    What is funny dragon ?  You are more interested in matts next 70 games ?

    That people think that Streveler’s few starts and limited play is a sign that he is ready to start. It looks like he has potential but his stats show he isn’t quite ready yet. I truly believe that throwing him out there now to try and salvage the season would be a mistake. You already know that if they did start him he will be playing with a playbook that is not designed to his skill set and he will be forcing the ball the same way Matt is now. Right now I honestly feel the coaching is insufficient right now and not specifically the players. Buck hasn’t been able to try and get the QBs to relax and not take the onus of winning all on their shoulders and Lapo, O’Shea, etc are not able to adjust at the half or on the fly to the other team’s play. If the second half of the last game isn’t proof then I don’t know what is. This team has more deficiencies that just The starting QB. Receivers dropping balls, bad defensive penalties, breakdowns on special teams, etc. Dropping Streveler into a broken team that isn’t changing isn’t going to be the proper way to develop him. At this point asking and expecting him to carry the team to the gold is a mistake. If he doesn’t produce the W real quick then the fans will turn on him as they have on every QB we have had since Khari.

  10. 1 hour ago, M.Silverback said:

    Exactly. Not to flog the deadest horse on this forum, but, that’s the argument to start Streveler. He’s not Mike Reilly, but, as a defensive coordinator or player, there’s some fear. You lose containment, he can burn you with a run. He gets into the secondary, he can out run, or run over a DB. Teams are salivating to play Nichols now

    Streveler doesn't scare anyone either in case you didn't notice he was 1 and 2 and passed for less than 200 yards in both losses and had virtually the same production as Nichols. The QB problem we have is coaching. 

  11. 14 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

    On the whole, I agree with this. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Nichols is playing hurt or not 100% right now, he's definitely looking over his shoulder and feeling the heat from Streveler.Although the D on the whole has been passable - in the Banjo Bowl with an amped up crowd and a lead (albeit 1 point) in the waning minutes - they just couldn't get it done.

    Ya. Me and a few friends think that Nichols is more hurt than they are letting on.

  12. 2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

    How can you guys say Loffler should have been replaced?  You guys loved Loffler until this season.  I told you he was crap last year and he was defended like crazy.  You can't be on both sides of that.  Love a guy in the off-season and then halfway through the season he should have been replaced when you were loving him.

    Is it that he’s crap or poorly coached. If the guy is not doing the things you want you bench him. They have replaced guys for reasons other than injury. So my assumption is Loffler must be doing what is asked of him.

    Same with our receivers and what they do when the QB is in trouble.

  13. 1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

    1st Down via the Rush: Edmonton 100 Winnipeg 99

    Rushing Yards per game: Winnipeg 135 ypg  Edmonton 99.8 ypg

    30+ Yard completions: Edmonton 26 Winnipeg 16

    Big deal we have a good run game. Name the last CFL team to win a Grey Cup with an offense based around the run game?

     

     

    Probably the last Montreal team to win. If you have a rushing game working in November your chances of success grow. That being said our nice rushing numbers haven’t helped our lousy passing stats. 

  14. 37 minutes ago, Ripper said:

    offense sells tickets, defense wins championships

    You need both to get the ring. Sask has a solid D but they really need to get their offence untracked. Their line is playing pretty good ball and they have some very good receivers but they don’t seem to get the ball consistently enough. I have to admit that I am surprised that the offence is so middling. No offence intended but I don’t see Sask getting to the GC unless they can get more production like they did in the Calgary game. 

  15. 15 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

    Fair enough, my point still stands though, currently the bombers are in control of their own destiny - and do not need outside help. I agree though that things look dire, but it's just been alot of doom and gloom around here lately. Further to my earlier point of all hope not being lost =after 12 games, last years' Grey Cup champs (the Argos) were also 5-7. The Redblacks the year before (2016) were slightly better at 6-5-1, my point is simply that the Bombers are still very much in the playoff race, despite their current efforts to be down and out. In the CFL it isn't how you start, it's how you finish...just look at the 2011 BC Lions.

    Thank you very much. I guess what concerns me the most is that the Bombers not having beaten a .500+ team.  It’s not that I don’t think they have the players I just think we don’t have the leadership right now. Unlike many of the folks here right now I do believe that Nichols can take this team to a championship. In the last two games though the play calling and unchecking of Matt’s uncharacteristic move to forcing more plays/try to force production plays have been his undoing. That last game especially he was doing crap he rarely had been doing. Is he feeling pressure from the fan base/press or is it that there are other facets of the offence and the external pressure that have forced this uncharacteristic play. Our receivers seem to stand out amongst other teams in not giving our QB (either of them) targets when under pressure. We seem to have one guy short and the rest try and get open deep. The Bombers kept trying exploit off tackle with run when most production was between tackles. Why are the Bombers the only team that doesn’t run quick slants? Why is it that aside from Dressler the only guys that produce YAC yards are our young Canucks sitting on the bench? How is it that our oline would leave guys like Jefferson free to step back into a passing lane unchallenged? Why on the same play is it the guy 30 yards deep the only guy besides one OL the guys to try and chase down that same DL?

    Right now the QBs think they have to do it all themselves and that is why they are not producing wins, just a pile of turnovers. 

    I also don’t absolve our defence. Yes, lack of second half offence is not helping but in few of these games they weren’t able to shut the other team down despite not having been on the field that long. I can understand a fourth quarter collapse but not showing signs of weakness in the middle of the third when to that point they have not been on the field that long. The Banjo Bowl is the only game since the Hamilton win that they stayed in the whole game.

    So, that is why at this time I think the Bombers are less in control of their destiny right now. That being said you are right they are still in the race with time to stay in the race. However, they are going to have to really stir the pot and change direction quickly because two more losses and they will be in serious doo-doo.

  16. 20 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

     

    Following your logic, you're incapable of being in control of your destiny to make good posts, since none of your previous ones have been good.

    Sigh. Why do people always resort to insults? Is your game always to incite flame wars? You really can’t come back with an actual argument? At least 17to85 argues the post content and not the person. If you don’t want to argue content with content kindly reserve comment. I have no issues with you as person so I expect that in return.

  17. 2 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

    What? We beat Calgary last year in the last week of the season. We also pushed them to the limit in the game earlier that year too.

    Man, I follow football to be entertained, not to be a grouch and depressed. If I wanted to do that I'd watch the news or be a Jets fan. As it stands, the Bombers are in control of their own destiny and are on the bye week. Besides, other teams have had equally lengthy Grey Cup droughts:

    Calgary - 23 years (1948 - 1971)
    Edmonton - 19 years (1956 - 1975)
    Saskatchewan - 56 years (Inception, 1910 - 1966)
    BC - 21 years (1964 - 1985)
    Winnipeg - 28 years (current)
    Toronto - 31 years (1952 - 1983)
    Hamilton - 19 years (1967 - 1986)
    Montreal - 25 years (1977 to 2002)

    So yes, our current drought isn't ideal, but it is not completely out of the norm.

    How are they in control of their own destiny? BC is two down with two games at hand. (Granted they are not a great team) and Montreal and TO are just two games back. All three have beat clubs with winning records. Our team hasn’t even come close to beating one. Aside from Montreal all the other teams we play have winning records and have handily beaten us. In theory you are not wrong but we are already counting on teams to lose in order for us to move into the playoffs 

  18. 6 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

    I was looking at that Friday night too after they won... they've got a much softer schedule than we do.  If Montreal can do us a favour next week, it's sadly possible that we could still make it in by only winning 1 more game this season. I don't see BC beating Hamilton who they've got twice, Edmonton or Calgary.  They should beat the Argos, so if that's their only win, maybe we squeak in!

    You also have to consider Toronto, Montreal and Hamilton. BC and Winnipeg not only have to duke it out but they have to stay ahead of those other three teams.

×
×
  • Create New...