Sard

I think there were 2 plays where his helmet came off... once during the play and another time where he took it off by himself, so I think you're both right.

I noticed that Alexander whiffed on a few tackles last night... felt like he had a rough game, but he did redeem himself a bit by recovering the onside kick.

Watched the game re-cap and paused it to see that the ball did land in bounds by about half a foot... didn't like the call at the time, but they did get that one right.

We have been one of the best teams against the run (if not the best) so far this season, so not sure that this is a true concern on our D... I think you're stuck on the fact that we were terrible against the run in seasons past.

If you're going to talk stats, it's not valid to cherry pick and omit certain plays... if you are, you're just trying to fit it into a predetermined narrative.

The only time I've noticed O'Shea "talking down" to people is when they ask inane questions. When an intelligent football question is asked, he lights up and engages with the person asking the question as if he was sitting down and having a beer with a buddy. Just because Weicek is one of the guys usually asking the inane questions, he's got his feelings hurt and that's why he writes the crap that he does about O'Shea and the team in general. The people responding to his articles likely only read what he writes and so only have what he has to say as a reference and don't really know what they are talking about.

Absolutely agree with that... how many clean, uncontested,10 yard throws on 2nd down was Durant able to make in that game? You have to know that on 2nd down they are looking for Nik Lewis... the D played it right on Montreal's first drive to get the INT, but basically forgot that that is the play Mtl will make 90% of the time in that situation and just let it happen.

Not to defend Hurl too much because he has definitely struggled without Leggett and Wild in the lineup, but is he playing a little out of position to help cover for the newer guys and opening up holes in the D where there otherwise wouldn't be any? Not that that helps us much, but just curious if maybe that's part of the struggle right now.

This is a problem that I've noticed quite a bit where defenders drop their heads 3 or 4 yards before they get to the guy they are trying to tackle/hit and they can't see their target. If the Montreal player had kept his head up, he would have seen Nichols duck and could have avoided his head. Same with the hit that the Bomber's player made on the Montreal kick returner on one play where he hit the guy out of bounds, if he had kept his head up he would have seen the returner step out of bounds and could have avoided making the hit and taking the penalty. Guys have got to start tackling smarter and keeping an eye on their target so that they don't miss the tackle and/or injure guys because they are being wreckless.

I was calling for a roughing the passer penalty on that play, so I was glad that he threw the flag... haven't seen a replay of it yet to know whether the c'mon centre got it right or not (but my instinct says they screwed up).

Alright, fair enough... don't think they should have been just based on how much time they had had off the field, but I suppose after the TD and the recovered onside kick that could sap some energy for sure.

How do you figure the Montreal D was gassed at that point in the game? They should have had plenty left in the tank considering the extremely lopsided time of possession.

Medlock's misses cost us 5 points because he got a single on the 2nd one. It would have made it so they just needed a FG to finish the game out. They may have played it much more conservative trying to get into FG range though, so who knows whether they would have made it.

Pinball Clemons would like to disagree with your comment.

I'm gonna go with the corner route to Clarence Denmark... it's bound to happen eventually...

Even from the angle inside the the end zone, the tip of the ball crossed the front plane of the goal line, so if that camera had been right on the goal line it would have been even more obvious that the ball crossed the plane. https://www.cfl.ca/games/2389/#videos At the 1:17 point you can see where the white stripe is on the ball and extrapolate where the point of the ball would be above the goal line. This angle isn't directly down the line and it appears to be across, so moving the camera down the line would make it even more obvious.

In the Game Preview article on the Bombers' website, it says that O-Line Coach Marty Costello takes them out. Not sure if he picks up the tab though... wouldn't surprise me if Nichols were to contribute.

Greg Ellingson

I've seen the argument many times over the years that there should be less flags, but I have to disagree with that as an absolute statement. When I see receivers running offside on every play and no flag, that frustrates me to no end. So overall, I would say that the refs just need to be consistent in enforcing the rules. Rather than telling the refs to put away the flags, it's also on the players to play clean. If they play within the rules, and the refs call the game according to the rules, then there would be no flags. Real life and game speed don't work that way though, so there is room for human error on both sides. Also, to hear how some people talk about it, you would think that there was a challenge on every play... overall there can be a maximum of 6 challenges in a game (unless the rules on the number of challenges have changed), and I'm not sure if there have been any games with more than 3 so far this year (disclaimer that I have not actually watched every single game so can't say that definitively). They do seem to have got faster with the challenge calls in general, but as has been said many times on here the C'mon Centre needs to get the calls right and they are currently failing at that far too often so far this year.

Tried to load up on them, but had a really hard time with it... exactly like you said, they jacked up the prices. I guess it sorta makes sense, but the salary cap is extremely restrictive. Anyone else find that they have 1 or 2 almost throwaway spots to stay under the cap?

Weston Dressler

I always park across Pembina in Waverley Heights and I found that traffic out of there was slower than usual. The only problem was getting onto Bison/Waverley because there were many more cars there due to the no right turn onto Pembina from Chancellor Matheson. That being said, it never really takes me all that long to get home, so no real complaint.

Also, honourable mention to the D for the goal line stand, stopping Calgary 5 times from the 1... though they did get the TD on the 6th try, that was an impressive series of stops.

What I saw tonight was a bad day at the office for Nichols , and the O in general. I actually thought the OL was giving Nichols plenty of time but he double clutched a few times when he really just needed to pull the trigger and go long. The one play that stands out there was when Harris was wide open right down the middle of the field and Nichols just dropped it off for a short pass that ended up incomplete. There were also a few plays where Nichols and his receivers just weren't on the same page... usually with the throw going long and the receiver curling short (happened with both Adams and Washington at least once each). Turning point in my mind was the BS* illegal contact call on the challenge because that allowed Calgary to score early in the 3rd (helped also by a blatant missed holding call on the play when Wild got injured), and then the dagger was the pick 6 which just totally deflated the already struggling offence. Unlike many of the callers on OB, I do not believe that the sky is falling and that we need to blow the team up... I chalk it up to an off day for a few guys... the season is early and there is plenty of football yet to be played. * I say it was BS because the receiver initiated the contact, and put Randle on the ground... it also all happened within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage, so the c'mon centre blew another call as far as I'm concerned

I believe the actual quote on the trailer for Atomic Blonde is something to the effect of "Critics are saying it's a female 007"... it's not actually related to the Bond franchise in any way, shape, or form.