deepsixemtoboyd

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.