deepsixemtoboyd

Ok, now read Tait's post game report. Precise responsibility for miscue remains foggy. What remains clear is this: Jones didn't look for the ball when evidently the ball was coming to him on an absolutely crucial play that the vast majority of head coaches would never have green-lighted in the first place. Responsibility is still, therefore, on both counts on the coach. To be more succinct: it didn't work, ergo no one is a genius, and **** has been happening too often.

I can agree that Darvin Adams was excellent. After that, though, you lose me a little bit… Medlock's punts were not "good." They were mostly pretty bad. And he threw the extremely ill-advised third down gamble pass, and he came up short on the game-winning field goal at a distance which is normally quite makable for him. Don't give me wrong, the whole offence choked away the entire fourth quarter, especially Nichols on that absolutely gawd-awful, telegraphed pic at the very moment that the best quarterbacks go to work (see exhibit A: Mike Reilley's performance 24 hours earlier). That said, if Medlock is hanging his head just a little bit this morning, I don't think that's the end of the world. The guy gets big money to be money and has been till now, but that isn't a reason to treat him with kid gloves when he ain't. And last night he wannit. Also, we used Harris quite a bit; the question is more in the way we used him. Too many dinks & dunks short of the yardsticks. I mean, to your point, maybe he should've got more handoffs in the third and fourth quarter… Don't know haven't checked the stats on this… But my main thought is that the other receivers needed to see the ball more, and more down field.

Definitely true that Jones was not expecting a pass, but MOS does not get off the hook that easy; he absolutely claimed full responsibility for the decision in the post game interview on CJOB, saying he had "green-lighted" Medlock to throw that pass. And, even if he is just trying to cover for Medlock, the fact that Medlock believes he he has the authority to make that decision as well as the fact that Jones seems to be unaware of what's going on the play; both of these things ultimately fall on the coach. And while Kelly Moore was doing his best Bob Irving impersonation – ie. defending all things Bombers – by saying that "if they had made it, we'd all be calling him a genius" (which is sort of like saying I'd be devastatingly handsome if I were only better looking), the reality is that our coach was, once again, employing some very unconventional reasoning to extremely unsuccessful affect. Was cruelly reminiscent of his decision to attempt a 61 yard field goal in the same facility last year; these absolutely crucial brain farts just keep coming and, I fear, are a sign that he is ultimately not up to the job. To whit, the first special-teams gadget play was brilliant. But the decision to go back to the well a second time, particularly at that point in the game at that position in the field, is suggestive, as the realist Doug Brown observed, of the addictive gambler who gets a big win and keeps coming back until he loses it all. The first 3rd down gamble demonstrates MOS to be a very competent special teams coach. The 2nd third down to gamble demonstrates MOS to be an incompetent head coach.

Oops... sorry about the repeat.

see below

These are two of my favourite posts in some time. I shared them with my 11-year-old who agreed Dickinson does seem like a weiner and added this gem: "he seems like a guy who someone just pushed into a pool with all his clothes on."

There's no doubt that Westy is sometimes pretty annoying. And repetitive. Hey, come to think of it… The wife says the same thing about me. ? Seems a bit harsh to me, however, to say that he "has no knowledge or insight." He seems to me to be about roughly equivalent to the other dudes they have on there in those categories. Maybe that's not setting the bar too high but… ? That said, I did not hear him kvetching about the woman and her million dollars… That would be highly vexing. I just don't listen for a while when I get tired of him and the rest of the guys. All that said, I still found your post pretty amusing, so keep at 'er!

Out in Fort Frances at a cottage on an island with the fan… So only able to watch the first 3/4 – not quite even - at BP. :-) What I loved, though, and I thought it was the turning point up till that point in the game was the long TD drive back end of the third-quarter, where Nichols and the O really answered after a similarly long field goal drive by Ray and the double blue. That was big-time, my friends!

K, now ur blowing my mind!

Thx, guys. I enjoyed these...I'm a sucker for puns!

Well, while I certainly can't – and don't want to – argue against your point that Nichols had a bad game, I'm not sure how you can so definitively conclude that coaching had nothing to do with the outcome… you say "how so?" I would argue that the best coaches demonstrate their competence and earn their keep in halftime adjustments. And while I can't break down the specifics of the superiority of their halftime adjustments ( I don't pretend to know enough about pro football to do that), it seems to me that the results speak for themselves. To whit, it wasn't just BLM that was better than Nichols in the second half. Their offence dramatically improved and had all kinds of success against our defense compared to the first half. Meanwhile, our offence dramatically deteriorated or I suppose you could also say that their defence immeasurably improved against our offense. We looked scrambly and ineffective, with a lot of short to medium routes that – by evidence of Nichols happy feet – we're not open whereas they look smooth and found lots of openings in the short, medium, and long arrange areas. This, to me, suggests that their coaching staff did a better job of evaluating what we were doing and re-scheming what they were doing than our coaching staff did. I mean, clearly their players executed better than our players that… but again I just know know how you can seriously contend that this has nothing to do with coaching; the results were quite sweeping across the board.

Isn't this a coaching issue? DD found a way to reinvigorate his troops, our guy didn't.

Yup, not too many positives to take outta 9th (YES, u read that right...NINTH!) straight loss at home to Stamps. I said to my buddy at outset of second half; "I've got a dire prediction..." He goes: "K, let's hear it". I say: "going out on a limb here to say O'Shea gets out coached by DD second half." Half-time adjustments is where coaches earn their keep. Says here we got out-adjusted last night. Badly. And as good a guy as MOS is, if I'm Calgary, I'll take that matchup every time.

Wow, you nailed it JBR! Arcenaux has ABSOLUTELY blown guys up, I mean, blown them up to smithereens, on MANY an occasion. He is a big, mean, nasty, effective receiver who completely manhandles little DB's and would absolutely NOT hesitate - at any point - to make a point to destroy a DB in a chase position, say, looking the wrong way. So, in this case, he just met a man who is as big and mean and he is...if Arcenaux gets up after that hit, there is absolutely (too many "absolutelys?") no way the ref chucks that flag.

Agreed it's not about one play. We lost that game for many reasons, most of them having to do with a defense that has been shredded for major yards WAY too many time this year. BUT...that doesn't mean that it's "reactionary" to point out that 1 play involved ridiculous and faulty reasoning by our coach. Look, the fact is we don't know if we would have converted on 3rd and 4, but we do reliably know that the odds of our kicker making a 61-yarder (when he has not done that all year and said himself his outside range is 57) are extremely low. What you look for from your coach is to weigh the odds and make a rational decision that increases your odds of winning. MOS absolutely failed to do that at the end of the game, therefore the "one play" is absolutely worth mentioning. Put it this way: if MOS gambles on third and 4 and we lose, no one is blaming any aspect of this on him. It's all on the D, firstly, and then, secondly, about the O not showing up in the second half. But because he did what he did, his call becomes the third factor that must be discussed.

Super well-said. Agreed that MOS has earned another contract (but I'd say two years, not three). But boy, that said, if it ever WAS possible to blow your new contract with one incredibly bone-headed call - as stupid as any play call ever IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL - this would be the way to do it.

Wow. Just wow. I think the blame gets spread around on this one like this: #1 blame getter - the Defense. The gave us absolutely nothing...I mean NOTHING...when we needed 'em. No cover (HUGE cushions on those last drives), no pressure, piss poor tackling. 31 points should be enough to win..So they were def the primary contributors to this loss. #2 blame getter - the Coach. Holy sh&%! Holy f*&^$# sh$#! In what universe does one have a better chance at hitting a 61-yard FG than converting on 3rd and 4? Bob Irving tried, somewhat half-heartedly, as is his wont, to defend the decision by saying if you miss on 3rd and 4 than you don't even get a chance at the FG. But that's just plain irrational. You gotta play the odds. Doug Brown understood this. This decision made 0 sense. When JM was trotting, I'm thinking...no hoping: "Well, guess MOS knows something I don't about Medlock kicking indoors or something". Nope. #3 blame getter - the Offense. Where'd they go in the second half? Outscored 20-6?! I mean, I know that 31 should be enough but when the other team is rallying and your D has been &*^%, you need to provide a spark. Six wasn't good enough... But MOS call at end is definitely the walk away winner for sheer shocker value...

The difference is this: I would rather play the Stamps in Toronto (after dispatching of easier prey down east) in a one-game-winner-takes-home-the-hardware than play them on their home turf in November with Messam hauling the rock AFTER bashing our brains out for 3 hours against a tough BC or Edm side only a week before. That said, I do like Do or Die's "path to true righteousness" quote. That's some sweet, almost philosophical stuff, man.

As much as I rooted for Willy, I have to agree with this analysis. Earlier this year, after about 5 wins for Nichols, Doug Brown wrote a column contending that Willy and Nichols' passing yards - after 5 games each - were about even, and so suggesting that Drew could be inserted again and also enjoy success. But this totally ignored the fact that Willy had thrown most of his yardage well AFTER the game was out of reach...garbage time, whereas as Nichols' yards came in the thick of tight games. In addition, Nichols' TD-INT ratio was 8-1 to Drew's 5-4, the latter including a pick six that finished us in our second game against Calgary. Finally, Nichols' long-ball accuracy has been damn fine all season whereas Drew hardly hit (or even attempted) a long ball. No, while I still like Drew (met him once in the T.O. airport and he seemed like a very decent guy indeed) and he MAY yet enjoy success in this league, there's no question that Nichols has been way stronger and the difference. My beef is how long it took Coach O'Shea (another very likable dude) to put Matt in there. I actually hold Coach significantly responsible for Willy's deterioration. Drew started VERY strong in '14, but after getting the *&^% kicked out of him for 1.5 seasons (with Coach stubbornly refusing to give him the relief he so desperately needed - afterall, what is the purpose of acquiring a qualified back-up?), his confidence was finally shot. I'm old enough to remember a guy named Cal Murphy who wasn't afraid to pull his hall-of-famer, Tommy Clements, to change up the rhythm, and put in old Hufer' when it was required. Hell, we won a Grey Cup that way!

I agree with this. We all tend to see things through lenses that suit our needs! Having said that, the Bombers don't catch any more (or less) breaks on average than any other CFL squad. Yes, for the second time in 6 weeks, a disputed call went in our favour. And for the third or fourth time in two weeks, other critical disputed calls also went in favour of the opposition (PI against Leggett (instead of against Coehoorn) vs Edm, phantom block from behind with no bearing on the play wipes out Fogg's return TD - for the 4th time this season, no less! (vs Edm) - phantom illegal contact against Heath sets up BC late in game for TD, Arceneaux doesn't survive contact with ground, ruled catch). So, not "long overdue for break" for sure, instead just exactly as much as due for a break as anyone else.

Great post, Steve. Nice and even-handed and clearly utilizing the rational part of your brain. Not something us football fans are often good at! Sincerely, helpful to "pull back the lens" and get some perspective on the bigger picture. Furthermore, to build on your point, BOTH teams caught apparent breaks from the ref at several points throughout the game. The illegal contact and sideline "catch" by Arceneaux both could have easily gone the other way too.

Yeah, fair enough. I think what seems strange though - as White Out points out - is all the apparent outrage and use of superlative language (i.e. "BC got burned, man!") by MIlt/Matty etc. I mean, the time of the game clearly magnifies the situation but, my gawd man, Arceneaux draws an absolutely critical illegal contact late in the game (on Heath) which directly results in 7 instead of 3 and the panel has nothing to say about that?! I was at the game and so admit I only saw the replay on the big screen but it certainly looked like Manny just fell. And, as White Out points out, there are judgement calls like this every game. The one against Leggett at the end of the first half against Edm - i.e. yeah, you know, the one that should have been offensive PI against the Edm player - was a total game changer. These things have a way of evening out and the so-called "fumble" by Harris was less blatant (a total 50/50 type situation) than MANY of the examples cited. So, really, let's at least lose all the righteous indignation on the part of the panel on behalf of poor maligned BC...

I was sitting at the 5 yard line directly parallel to the play. 1. His momentum was halted before the ball came out. 2. The whistle blew, clearly ending the play before the ball was out. 3. Harris' rear end hit the ground at the same time as the ball came out, and the ground can't cause a fumble. 4. There was nothing you could categorize as definitive on the replay, and definitive evidence is required to overturn a ruling on the field. Finally, the TSN panel - i.e. Matt, Chris, and - yes, 'fraid to say - even our own Milt - are full of it. They were watching from the studio, not at the game so they could not have heard the whistle. I also think it's pretty bush of them to call out the refs with the specious argument that this was a clear cut call that "burned BC". On what basis do they make this argument?! What a load of hooey! At worst, it was a 50/50 call that went against BC (hey, some do) and the 4 points noted above push it conclusively in the Bombers' favour. There, that was definitive.