deepsixemtoboyd

God, the only thing that would make the current seeming **** show more of a joke is to have the washed-up, super-thin-skinned Durant running the offense. Guy's a total ****.

This absolutely nails it. It was obvious after the 2016 season that the offense had radically improved, that Nichols was in a zone as was Harris, but that neither of these players were getting any younger and thus the window was closing… It was equally clear that the defense was ****. MOS, however, true to form went all stubborn, retaining Hall not only for 2017 - which was already absolutely inexcusable – but then actually doubling down on his stupidity by retaining him again this year. The defense, while modestly improved this year, continues to be far, far, so far from a championship calibre side. Case in point? They were pretty good yesterday against a very mediocre Saskatchewan offense BUT... when they absolutely had to make stops, Mason ran all over them in the second half. I was there… I know. I saw it with my own eyes. The fact that Richie Hall is still here 2 seasons beyond when he should have been and that this madness continues was 100% completely avoidable and is, quite frankly, disgusting. Now the window on Nichols seems to be closing and we have a total train wreck as a result… All of this is 100% on MOS.

Victim how? Isn’t he the one who hired and has continued to stubbornly retain all of his subordinates? Hint: this is a rhetorical question. If he is a victim, he has been victimized by his own hand.

Bring it on, man! It'll be cathartic, for you and your "small but devoted following" (I count myself one of those)...

Well, we are in a circular argument now... They’re usually promoted on the basis of some of the measures of success and indicators of competence described by me and others in previous posts. I’ve suggested Buck lacks these fundamental indicators in sufficient measure to warrant such a promotion.

Don’t get me wrong: I think buck’s very likeable as a person. I once sat next to him on a plane and he seemed very polite and decent. Maybe he does bring something as a QB coach? I really have no way of knowing. That said, I have never been able to understand the love affair that some Peggers had/have with Buck as a football pro. Being a super nice and passionate guy didn’t make him a effective QB and does not translate into him being an effective offensive coordinator. To me, the way he carries himself, his lack of coaching experience, and his overall lack of success as a quarterback simply don’t inspire confidence that he could get it done or would be an improvement on Lapo. In sum: I have no ill will against a man, I just don’t want to see him as our OC and don’t see any rational, compelling evidence to the contrary.

What evidence do you have that Buck would be effective? When has he ever been effective? He never won a Grey Cup, threw 18 picks against 14 TD’s in his best season here (2011- we went to the Cup that year in spite of him not because of him), and he has never struck me as even close to cerebral or well-spoken or even clear during interviews (whereas a guy like Dickenson or Maas or Clements all showed better on all those measures).

This would be truly ridiculous. What would lead you to believe that Buck has any sort of clue? Furthermore, it does not make sense that LaPolice has suddenly turned into an idiot. It is much more plausible that Nichols is the primary problem, especially when other teams are getting any sort of heat on him. That is on him – for a limited skill set – and even more so on the coach for refusing to change it up and put in somebody more mobile after a whole pile more 2 and outs. I mean, do you really believe that Buck P. – who hardly showed a lot of strategic savvy during his playing days – is going to be more effective at playcalling than LaPolice?

Yeah, I think this is the best Plan B we can hope for now: the bombers continue to stink but are just good enough to get the crossover and, assuming Nichols’ downward trajectory continues, we only have to have hope that the incredibly thick-headed coach accepts, by playoff time, that Streveler gives us the best chance, regardless of his limited experience, because his physical skill set is that much superior. Hell, he even looks mentally tougher/sharper at this point – albeit in his limited appearances/limited sample size (recently), thanks to Mr. Pigheadedness.

How about taking just a modicum of responsibility himself?

Yeah, but Bob is pretty much an angry sounding broken record on this stuff who has always focused primarily on pandering to Blue brass. I mean, how many times can you say, no excuse me, yell (as Bob routinely does): "Well, who does that?" whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that it might be time to try something different than trotting out Nichols, again and again, until the game is out of reach. Yes, the D ended up giving up a lot of yards today. But only after the O s*** the bed again and again and again. The D held a very powerful offense to 12 points until well into the 3rd quarter. What was the time of possession? Yardage stats? It has to have hugely favoured the Stamps...you're only going to hold BLM and Dave D. in check for so long. Your bloody O has to do something. So, to Bob's question: who does that? Well, Wally Buono does that. Chris Jones does that. Rick Campbell does that. All have "done that" (i.e. pulled the starter) in the recent past and all have won Grey Cups. What's the definition of insanity, according to Einstein? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That's what we did with Nichols again today. Putting Streveler in would qualify as something different. I mean, what's Bob's solution? Answer: Just keep defending Blue brass' stubborn stupidity? Just keep endlessly repeating "who does that?" I mean, how's that philosophy working out for us?

I could not agree more that Nichols should absolutely keep his yap shut about the booing for the reasons others have already cited. I also agree that the fans were booing, at least in part, MOS' decision to re-insert Nichols (more than Nichols himself, per se). But let's not kid ourselves here. The fans were also booing because Streveler had provided just a little spark in a game in which - outside of his two successful deep shots - Matty had struggled mightily. Us fans were genuinely excited to see Streveler bringing a little something different. And then coach kills that spark... Plus it just defies about a 100 cumulative years of football coaching acumen to put your starter back in the game after he has just been dinged up when you are down 24 points. I mean, holy %$#^, talk about stupid. And stubborn. And ridiculous on so many fronts. If Matt's sore at anyone, he should be sore at his coach for putting Matt and Bomber fans alike in a terrible position. I mean, of course he freakin' wants to go back in the game and finish up with his troops (which is what he said on the post game show) but it's the head coach's &^%ing job to take that decision away from his player because the coach is supposed to see a bigger picture. Nichols went on to say he'd also want to finish up the game if we were up by 24 as well. Well, d'uh he would! But that wouldn't make that the right call in that situation either. To sum up: the game is over, Nichols is dinged, Streveler is moving the ball, the fans are feeling a spark....WTF? I mean, just unbelievable decision-making from our head coach.

i think this is solid analysis and very positive. It's also very "glass half-full" and I do appreciate optimism. And I so want to believe it will lead to where we all want it to go. But that is the question, isn't it? Will it lead to a Grey Cup, this year or next? Because, if you will allow me to indulge my fearful, "glass half-empty" side for a moment, all this great "culture" stuff won't really matter a lick if it doesn't lead us to the promised land and the window is not unlimited for guys like Andrew Harris who, while still unbelievable, is now 31. We have yet to win a playoff game under MOS, and we are in his 5th year. That really has to change this year to sustain the positivity, doesn't it? Last year, after losing, many of the Blue players were all: "Well, even though we lost, this is my best experience ever in football" and "I'll always remember this year" and "we're a brotherhood". Well, okay. Yeah, that stuck in my craw at the time. Because, you know what? I'd sure put up with a few attitudinally-challenged but skilled players on the team if it meant a Grey Cup, sooner rather than later. Culture and brotherhood are important, for sure, but only if it leads to the ultimate prize...cause this is pro sports. In the end, it's about wins and losses. On that note, MOS is a 500 coach over his career now. Some things I fear will hold him back are the very things cited as strengths, for what are weaknesses except too much of a good thing? Loyalty and being a players' coach are great for the reasons cited by DOD, but loyalty to excess leads one to leave the starting quarterback or DC in place too long. The ability to seize the moment with the element of surprise is good, but too many trick plays at the wrong time and place on the field have proven fatal more than once. Clarity and a strong will is good, but too much of it becomes misplaced certainty, stubbornness and an incapacity to accept and then work with the unavoidably "grey" dimensions of life, which also surface in coaching. Take Streveler. He has demonstrated that he is special. Does MOS have nuanced ability to appreciate the delicate nature of this situation? He has said: "We know what we've got" in Streveler while also declaring his unquestioning commitment to Nichols. Two things I don't want to see, but fear in this area? Firstly, the "loyalty" and clarity of committing to Nichols getting in the way of us winning the Cup while we are in the window with Harris. Secondly, Streveler - who I believe has Mike Reilly like potential - becoming the next Mike Reilly (i.e. a generational player who got away from the franchise who discovered him because they were trying to ride the current starter too long). In brief, MIke, other people now know what you've got as well. To end positively, this last week the defense under Richie Hall came up huge in crunch time to preserve a win. That hadn't really happened before. That was an extremely positive sign. So maybe MOS was correct to stick with Hall. Time will tell. As I said, I want to believe. But the next hurdles are sustained performance for the D for the rest of the season and then, at minimum, at least one playoff win. Can MOS lead us past these critical markers and, ultimately, to the promised land? I hope so. The culture is trending in the right way, now if we can only close the deal before the window closes.

Agree only to a point. We are usually more effective when spreading it around with a good helping of misdirection. However, last night the deep shots were there. Nichols just flat out missed ‘em.

After 28 years of wandering in the wilderness, the only thing that really matters to me now is if we have a defence that is good enough to do its part in recapturing the holy grail… and on that score, I would have to see the jury is definitely still out. While I am not saying that the defence has not improved, the question is whether it has improved enough. I will only believe it has when it can more consistently contain the better offenses in the league and/or when late in the game, i.e. in a close game, in crunch time… The defence is able to preserve a victory.

Regarding Lofler & JBR & DOD’s commentary, just YES. The guy has really pulled a disappearing act since his first year when he was a big-time, big impact play maker. Now he never seems to be around the ball until it’s too late, never delivers the big blow, and has missed too many tackles. I am dismayed and mystified.

Thanks DOD. Was avoiding coming on here because I was too depressed following last night. On a positive note, Andrew Harris continues to be the best free-agent signing in the history of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers franchise. Demski is demonstrating that his signing was also a sweet pick-up. But wow. Wow… Just wow… Talk about defecating the 🛏. There was a lot of post game debate on ‘OB about the decisions to go for it on third down & the play calling thereto pertaining… But precious little discussion of what you highlighted: namely, this defence is simply still not good enough. The inability to stop anything on 2nd and long repeatedly is atrocious. I dunno know, man, the personnel on the field changes but the results stay the same. What would it take for O’Sh to accept that he needs a different guy designing the schemes? Over 4.4 years as head coach, Mike’s record is now 37-40. Is that right? I dunno, man...

Agreed with you about Buff and too many minutes. Maybe we can give him a bit of a pass tonight as we lost Kulikov early and that maybe forced PM's hand with Buff's minutes. If PM could really limit his minutes going forward and punish him (i.e. sit him) when he pulls ca-ca like he did with that penalty...well...let the debate continue.

It was great to see Buff muscle around the back of the net while holding off a very large man in his own right, Burns, to create the chance for Little. That said, what he did - taking an anger-driven penalty - after they tied it up 4-4 could very easily have cost us both points. Inexcusable. Also questionable, IMO...PM having Buff and Laine out on the ice at the same time while protecting a one-goal lead late in the game. Finally, I think you gotta think hard about trading Buff if you could get the right pieces that push you over the top for a run at the Cup. While I love Buff when he's doing what he did in O.T., I question whether you'll ever win a Cup with him as a core piece on your blue line. I also fear we'll wait too long and therefore get nothing for him. Nevertheless, happy with the win.

And a legit middle linebacker.

Yes, I was at the game, so didn't see the hit to the head until I watched the replays this afternoon. You're absolutely right, that had MOS challenged at that point it would almost surely have been ruled a roughing the passer (with the way they've been calling that this year). Huge turning point, I stand corrected. Or at least supplemented... ?

Further to the above, I may be stating the obvious, but I see two key turning points in terms of momentum – not counting the team is taking the field at the beginning of the game. :-) The first was Lankford quitting on his route taking points off the board at the end of the first half. The second was the cats' pooch kick recovery leading to another score at the outset of the second half. Pretty much all she wrote after that. That said, I have found it interesting to watch, in a couple of games now this yr, where a team has lost their kicker and it's forced them to get creative and, in both cases, to some ultimately positive affect. Makes one wonder if there might be a place for more third down gambling or quick kicks (with the option to throw a pass or run a bootleg etc.) in offensive situations like third and 2 or 3… even if your kicker is in good shape. My dad, who is 75 years old, says they used to be way more of that sort of thing. And it was fun, and interesting, and often effective.

This is well done. You definitely are showing as a more than capable back up, which is more than can be said for a few blue this afternoon.

Thank you person who always resorts to the same sort of name-calling retort when he has nothing of substance to say to those who disagree with him.

That's not what the poster is talking about. He said they were a good, not great team. You respond by saying they have a good record. But those are two different things. He is talking about the team. You are talking about their record. They can both be true. Yes, 10-4 is a good record, no doubt. That doesn't make them a great team. A great team could be defined as one in which all the component units function effectively (e.g. offense, defense, special teams in football), each doing their share to contribute to the overall group's success. Another definition of greatness in athletics - as in "the great teams in history" - might be those squads that consistently dominate over a period of many years (e.g. the Esks of the early 80's or the Patriots in more recent history) or whom have won it all, often more than once. The poster is, I think, suggesting that the current edition Blue Bombers will be unable to ascend to the category of greatness, by either measure, until they address their deficiencies on D. I think he's right.