Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deepsixemtoboyd

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I sure do agree with most of this. Esp the first part in bold above, 'cept I'd put it even stronger: i.e. If Buff decides he want to play again I am shopping him hard. Whatever the elixir, the team chemistry and work ethic this year has been notably stronger than last, and Buff was a big part of last year (and the 7 before that). Don't get me wrong: there's something very likeable about Buff, beyond his huge presence, shot, and undeniable skills. In some ways, he has a winning personality too. That said, he has often taken large chunks of the reg season off, with a penchant to float during the unsexy, "doing-the-laundry" parts of the year. I have noticed, in the past - albeit just eye test - that when Buff is injured during the regular season the Jets overall team defence seems to improve. I think if you go back to their reg season record without Buff we'd find the Jets actually do pretty good (often better?) without him. Happy be be corrected with actual numbers, as admittedly that's just my gut sense of it. In the playoffs? Different story. There, he shows up. Usually big time. BUT...at 34 years of age, he just aint gonna be getting better and - when coupled with whatever the H-E double hockey-sticks has being going on with him since training camp walk out PLUS the fact that the Jets are doing fine without him...well, to me it becomes a no-brainer. I do NOT want him back on this team at this point. And, if I'm Chevy, I'm moving him for a regular contributor plus prospects. Do not agree with the second bolded part above, though: i.e. def NOT moving Wheeler. He is still the heart beat of the leadership group and - since Little went down again - has absolutely demonstrated his versatility and value, driving the second line. Hell, 2 games ago against Big D, he went something like 85% or 89% in the face-off circle and is also an iron-man type. Nope, hang on to Wheeler for this year, esp if we are looking like a playoff team, which we are. The rest I agree with. Thx.
  2. Here's exactly what you said: "...(Lapo's) gadget play direct snap to Demski killed our momentum... Collaros ability to survive pocket pressure while Lapo’s plays develop is what saved us.., that and Harris in beast mode and getting 5 Yards after being tackled." So, your words clearly present or strongly imply the following arguments: 1) That Lapo is to blame for "killing our momentum" because he called a direct snap to Demski. 2) That "Lapo's plays" are too slow to develop and that it is only "Collaros' ability to survive pocket pressure" that "saved us" (i.e. saved us from what? - well, you make it clear: from the slowness of Lapo's plays to develop). As such, you clearly imply that Collaros should get the credit for the success of those plays and that they occurred in spite of Lapo's incompetence, not because of any competence he may bring. 3) That Harris being "in beast mode" and breaking tackles is also what "saved us" (i.e. saved us from what? - from Lapo's play calling. Again, you make the link clear from your inclusion of the phrase "that and". Ergo, again, Harris gets credit for successful long runs in spite of Lapo in your world). Finally, your argument that I am "taking this a little personally" is particularly hilarious inasmuch as I presented a clear rationale critiquing your logic (and decidedly not you, personally, in any way). It was you, ironically, who turned it personal by telling me I was "taking this a little personally" and that I should "relax." I have a better idea than me "relaxing" (I'm smiling as I write this so I'm pretty chill, man): Why don't you either explain your logic and clearly illustrate what I was missing about your original post or - using a rational argument of your own - actually refute what I have written in my response post rather that turning to Ad hominen before - again, hilariously - accusing me of the same. Enjoy the victory, man. On that we can agree, I hope.
  3. So, your team has just won the championship. And you want to fire members if its coaching staff? This is unorthodox thinking.
  4. So, let me get this straight: when the offense succeeds it’s because of Collaros and Harris and how skilled they are, no credit to our offensive coordinator whatsoever. But when the offense struggles in any way whatsoever, now THAT has nothing to do with players or their execution but is instead 100% on the OC and his schemes and calls? Your reasoning, as presented, is a classic illustration of a phenomenon called fundamental attribution error or confirmation bias. Look it up… It’s a real thing. And you are in its grip.
  5. So, I guess the answer is no, then? As in you won’t shut up about Lapo, even for a week? And you are rejecting my modest proposal for peace during this celebration? ps. Didn’t ask you to apologize, BTW. I just asked you to park it for a week. 😀
  6. Dude, I wasn’t referring to you. But sorry, as that was definitely unclear: my bad. I was actually thankful for your post! It’s some of the other posts about our offensive coordinator that I find… Well, offensive. 🙂
  7. I find it interesting and - to be honest - annoying that there are still people on this site bitchin’ about Lapo AFTER we won the fackin’ Grey Cup. The guy is working with his third starting quarterback and ONLY managed to direct an offense that averaged 29.3 points per game while on the road for all 3 games! In addition, I have noticed that the folks who seem to have a greater level of expertise – people like Stegall, Orlando Steinauer, the defenders on Hamilton – seem to convey a lot of respect for Lapo. Simoni Lawrence specifically singled him out as being a “very creative“ and difficult to cope with offensive coordinator. So, for the love of gawd, people, even if we can’t agree that some of you who are the heaviest critics of Lapo seem to lack any modicum of common sense, can we at least agree to uphold a moratorium on Lapo bashing for one week following our winning of the Grey cup?
  8. Yeah, but 11 is still so much more than four. So sweet…#2013
  9. In all sincerity, I did like the gif above. Made me smile. K' now for the essay... Firstly, I am thrilled that we are in the Grey Cup. Been 8 long years. I've cheered the Bombers faithfully since age 8 in '77. Since then we've won it all 3 times. Each time was positively beautiful. I've also suffered faithfully through the recent 0-5 Cup run. Been hard to be so close that many times and not close the deal. So, let me say again, I am elated that we're going to the Big Dance for another shot and although some will put me in a "Osh haters" box because I advocate for examining his track record - I'm actually extremely happy for him and his post-season success this year. But...not because I am an "Osh lover" (I guess that's the opposite of a "hater"?) but because I am a hard core Blue Bomber fan and he is our coach and I want them to win, above all else. That all said, here's why I "care" (JCon) and don't think it is a "dumb question" (MC) to wonder aloud about whether Collaros sees the field if Streveler doesn't get hurt: Our coach has shown a debilitating and consistent tendency to stick with his starter even when it is painfully obvious that it doesn't make sense to do so. He did it in '15 with Willy, he did it in last year's Western final with Nichols, and he did it with Streveler in the second last game in Calgary this year, where our starter was both ineffective and injured. He even set up Nichols (and the ensuing controversy with fans/media) when he re-inserted the struggling pivot into a game in '18 on a day when the starter clearly didn't have it and Streveler had given fans hope coming off the bench. So, while I want to believe that the coach was planning to let Collaros start because it was painfully obvious that we weren't going to get it done with Streveler (and getting it done is, after all, the point), I don't think that that can reasonably be considered a foregone conclusion. And the reason that that matters is if he wasn't going to try out Collaros, then unfortunately the outstanding events of the last 3 weeks would have more to do with good fortune (i.e. that Strev was hurt enough to sit out a game but not so hurt as to be lost for the season) than growth in our head coach's decision-making ability in this critical area. In summary, it matters because it would bode very well for MOS' head coaching future if he was planning to start Collaros in the final reg season game regardless of Streveler's health. If, on the other hand, he only started him because he had no choice, that bodes less well. And for those of you who will now crucify me for being a "downer" on the eve of the big party for even entertaining this discussion, well...I think we're probably just pretty different people. For me, part of the fun of being a fan and a forum member is discussing such questions. If that's not your thing, well, then maybe you really oughten to have read all this far, eh? But if you did read this far, maybe it's because you were actually somewhat interested, engaged, provoked etc...and isn't that the point? Go Bombers!
  10. Well, I guess I thought it was an interesting question. Guess I was wrong. Another possibility is that some folks are a tad defensive. Yeah, I like the second theory better.
  11. Hmm... The Bombers just won their second playoff game in a row on the road. The elements in those victories include a starting quarterback who’s been here six weeks and is the third starting QB that the OC has had to work with. Yet they scored 35 points last week against the defending champs and 20 this week in the most hostile barn in the land, for a total of 55 in two games and a birth in the Cup. Leaves a guy to wonder what it would take for the Lapo haters to settle down?
  12. Gotta say, don't see what's funny about domestic violence.
  • Create New...