deepsixemtoboyd

Colin with a great post earlier. Thank you. 1) I usually feel that Lapo takes it on the chin here in ways that often don't make a lot of sense to me...BUT, I have to admit that I was quite mystified by the fact we didn't try to establish the run early or get Strev rolling out given his strengths and current limitations. 2) Overall, Strev is developing just fine; weird throwing motion aside, I still feel he likely has a higher ceiling (maybe significantly higher) than Nichols. 3) Specifically, loved his ability to hang on to the ball when blasted inside our 5-yard line; amazed he didn't fumble which would have led to 7 pts for Sask. 4) Also loved his ability to lead us on what should have been a game-winning drive late. Nichols has struggled with that by comparison in recent seasons. 5) That said, I am not smart enough to assess how Nichols would have done overall in that game, nor do I feel the need to slag him in comparison to Strev. Seems to me that his passing is, right now, more effective than Strev's, esp the deep ball, but Strev is a lot younger and needs time to develop and he will if the Bombers give him the chance. As Colin observes, Nichols has also been very good at protecting the ball (not throwing picks) and not making mistakes like the intentional grounding. That said, Strev will learn from those missteps, I think, and should close the gap in those areas over time. 6) Finally, I am old enough to remember how the Eskimos handled the emergence of Warren Moon as an understudy to Tom Wilkinson. They shared playing time, more and more, until Moon eventually took over. I think O'Shea needs to be less hesitant to use the hook with Nichols when - after 3 quarters - he is clearly struggling. That has also continued to be mystifying.

Well, OK… But he got 55 yards of that on one carry. He was OK. But I can see why they weren’t leaning on him at the end as he was fairly consistently getting stopped for one or 2 yard gains.

Wow. Disappointing. Down in the States with extended family for a cycling weekend. Hooked up our laptop to the TV and watched on ESPN+, the whole lot of us. Pretty quiet, depressed room right after…

Yeah… I think LaPo called a good game. Actually, I think LaPo generally calls a very good game and seems to understand what he’s working with very well. The blue bombers offense – under his direction - is superior and more sophisticated than what we had before… Remember those days? - No misdirection? No check down game? No deep threat? Utterly predictable… Before he came back? I’m going out on a limb here and saying he is a smart guy that takes a lot of caca on this board from for reasons that I find hard to understand. And, pleeeeeeeeze...I really like Buck, but can we finally put to bed any yammering for him to take over as the OC? I mean, once again, what evidence is there that Buck is an offensive mastermind? The bombers have a highly rated offense even with a starter (Nichols) with a limited skill set and ceiling (compared to some of the other starting quarterbacks) and have still managed to produce and are now eight and two. So, let’s give LaPo a little well-deserved love, along with some of the other pieces in the successful season we’ve had thus far.

Totally. Thank you.

Wait, so you actually believe that O’Shea wants to pull the starter but Lapo is overruling him?

That’s two games in a row for Bighill since his return. The defence looked better prior to re-inserting him. That’s the hard truth at the moment.

This

I can’t disagree with anything you said here. The only caveat I would offer to the critique of our GM is the fact that it appears that Mike O’Shea is extremely resistant to bringing in new people partway through the year. It is part of his very dysfunctional “loyal to a fault” quality. Actually, that quality is more than dysfunctional. It proves fatal every year and manifested again on Sunday in his refusal to replace a quarterback (even for 2 or 3 series) who just did not have it.

Rider fans... just beautiful. Just wow. You come on here chirping… Although I am disappointed by today, the pain is so sweetly muted by the fact that we played one week longer than you. By the fact that your first ever game at Mosaic Stadium will go down as a loss to the blue bombers. And your first ever playoff game in Mosaic Stadium will also go down as a loss to the blue bombers. Nothing that happens from this point on will ever change those facts. Isn’t that just lovely? Now, I will enjoy the next six months following our national hockey league team… While you will…huh...Come to think of it, what the hell will you do?

I guess it comes down to your assertion that this was "a call they're clearly not going to reverse." Not quite sure how you can be so certain of that. Esp since a few others have now weighed in on other angles by which the call could be considered questionable. For his part, in the post game presser, MOS said "I'm not sure if that ball was really catch-able or even if they take that into account..." With all due respect, they DO take that into account and, actually, it is the head coach's job to know that they do. I maintain that if coach had said he was challenging on the basis that the ball was not catchable then it is not a no brainer that they wouldn't reverse it upon review (since, I'd hope, upon review they'd see that it actually was not catchable). As far as saving the challenge for a more important moment later in the last drive (ala Booch), if you are not prepared to use your challenge to try to maintain an 11 point cushion with less than 3 min left in the game, your judgement may be off as to what constitutes a important moment. The fact is - as it turns out - there was not another "riper" challenge situation that arose in the final 3 min. By the "keep waiting till the last drive" logic, you'd often wait for something better that - in reality - often would not emerge, only to discover that time had ran out and you ended up not using it at all...hey, wait a minute...that's exactly what happened. In sum: I maintain it was not a call they would never reverse, ergo it was worth challenging at that stage in the game given the critical importance of the call. The reason I even raise it is it makes me a bit nervous about coach's judgment in critical situations. Granted, he's had some much bigger brain cramps in the past. This was definitely minor compared to the infamous 62 yard field goal instead of gambling on 3rd and 4. But maybe we should stick with what we can agree on? Like...it's pretty sweet to beat the riders in both their first ever game and playoff game at Mosaic.

Good point, but you didn’t address the fact that the throw was beyond receiver’s reach anyway. The reason he embellished was because he knew we did not have a shot at making the catch. I believe the referee has discretion to not a call a PI infraction if he judges that the ball was not catchable. Or maybe it’s a infraction but just a 10 yarder and a first down.

A huge congrats to you, MOS, for winning a playoff game. Awesome. Couple questions though. Why not use your challenge on the ticky-tack interference call in the end zone with about 2 min left? You know, the one that gifts the otherwise totally hapless sliders with their only TD of the night. Couldn't you have made the following points to the refs: a) receiver initiates contact b) receiver then clearly embellishes effect of contact and/or c) the ball was not catch-able. More to the point, what is the risk in using your challenge flag at that point? did you think there would be a better or more impactful candidate in the final 2 min? To not challenge at that juncture was basically to gift them the TD. A second good challenge candidate would have been the lateral that was called an incomplete pass. I understand wanting to avoid wasting your challenge, but to not use your challenge at all is a waste when there are high-reward candidates in the mix. Still. Congrats on the win. Must feel helluva good. Finally, the only thing better than winning a playoff game? Doing it at Mosaic. In their first ever playoff game there. To send rider p** home for 6 more months of nothingness.

Geez, I guess you and I don’t agree… Imagine that? Two people having a different take on something as subjective as what constitutes funny...weird. Anyway, I could agree with you, but then we would just both be wrong. 🤓

Yeah...k...Those are definitely ****** baggy, egomaniacal quotes. Still, if we’re going into history, Milt always liked to talk about himself in the third person. As in, “Milt Stegall never shows up late…” Or “Milt Stegall isn’t thinking about the touchdown record…” My experience is that people who like to talk about themselves in the third person are also inevitably egomaniac, ****** bags. Anyway, you’ve now explained why you do not like Davis Sanchez. Thanks. At the end of the day, I think I still prefer him as a commentator to Milt because of the way the two men carry themselves in the present and - more specifically- what each brings to the table as a TSN commentator, both in style and substance.