TBURGESS
-
Posts
5,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by TBURGESS
-
-
Why is the poll already closed?
I'd like to go with Ticats, Als, Bombers, & Stamps
-
Brady O
-
-
- McCrae - The 2 huge plays turned the game around for us
- Willie J - Just another normal excellent game for him
- Coaching staff - Making the right changes at half time
HH - The ref who called the weak PI that got us 7
- BigBlueFanatic and Noeller
-
2
-
15 hours ago, Booch said:
well....we werent talking about punt returns....but a screen pass in the backfield
The fact that it was a screen pass has no bearing on the call.
12 hours ago, Jesse said:“Forcible block”
It’s a judgment call by the ref on what constitutes force.
That's why if you just get in the way, it's not called but a real block gets called.
-
-
It's simple. You can't come back towards the LOS and block a guy at any time.
9 hours ago, Sard said:Article 13 — Blindside Blocking
It shall be illegal for any player to deliver a forcible block on an opponent while moving back towards their own dead ball line anywhere on the field.
Therefore it doesn't matter when the ball was caught or where the ball was caught. It doesn't matter if the player being blocked is past the LOS or behind the LOS either. Those blocks can be called on punt returns down field 40 yards from the LOS.
-
Crack back blocks have been illegal for years. You can only use a legal block if the ball is caught behind the LOS, so it didn't matter where the ball was actually caught.
-
Brady O
-
40 minutes ago, Brandon said:
What if the o-line gave him more time, what if the receivers made the wrong decisions in routes or when to go for the ball, what if the coach called a different play.
What if's mean nothing. For example: What if Adams didn't throw the ball to the wrong team 6 times? Who cares?
17 minutes ago, GCn20 said:Yards will get you nothing but false hope. Losing teams quite often have the better yardage totals. In the game we shredded Saskatchewan we had about the same yardage as what TO had. No one would argue that we decimated their defence.....and you are delusional if you think this is the first time he has looked bad in a BC uniform. The guy had 4 piss poor outings for them last year alone and he only started 6 of them....not sure where you are getting 13 or 14 games from? 3 this year and 6 last year...in which he has 5 losses. Yea.....really a world beater that guy.
Adams threw for 1,504 yards with six touchdowns and one interception with the Lions last season. I though he played 10 games for the Lions, but it was only 6. Redoing the arithmetic... 6 games last year, none of them anywhere near as bad as this years TOR game + 4 games this year = 9 good games + 1 horrible game. Therefore we should expect that he has a really bad game 1 out of 10 games or twice this year. He's lost 3 games out of 10. Every loss doesn't = Adams playing badly. Note: I'm not saying that makes him a word beater.
-
2 hours ago, GCn20 said:
BCs defense got shredded by Kelly and the run game, and their STs surrendered a TD. It was not just one player having a bad game....although Adams did look completely and thoroughly awful. However, BC is going to get that Adams 8 or 9 times this year so they better be a lot better when Mr. Hyde Adams shows up 50% of the time.
BC defense held Toronto to 0 yards in the first quarter. TOR only needed 329 yards to score 45 points. TOR had 106 yards rushing & 249 passing. Not great, but I wouldn't call it being shredded especially when you take the 6 turnovers into account.
BC's offense put up 413 Net yards. They had around the same number of first downs, sacks, & Time of Possession as TOR.
That punt return TD was a huge play for TOR.
First time Adams has looked that bad in a BC uniform. So it's once every 14 games so far, not 8 or 9 times a year.
THE stat is turnovers: 6 for Adams, 0 for TOR. (+1 on downs each) The rest of the team mostly did their jobs.
-
1 hour ago, Brandon said:
But was it Adams having a horrible game or maybe Toronto is just superior and are on a different level from the Lions? /sarcasm
Because when the Bombers loss badly to the Lions you made it seem like that anyone who suggested that the Bombers "had a horrible game" were wrong and that this was not possible and that the Lions were just so much better then the Blue.
Adams threw 6 picks that directly resulted in most of Toronto's points (34 IIRC). It was a case where a player had a horrible game, not that the whole team had horrible games all at the same time.
I'm not making any excuses for BC, just like I didn't make any excuses for WPG last week. Both teams played the best they could on the day and got beaten by better teams. Keep telling yourselves that in our case it was just a bad day by the whole team if you want to, but we won't know if that's true until we've played TOR and BC again.
-
12 hours ago, Brandon said:
I'm sure TBurgess will spin this into somehow the Bombers being the worst team ever in the CFL since we lost to VAJ.
This one ain't about the Bombers. It's about Adams horrible game and the coach not pulling him.
There are 3 top teams in the league. This week the order is: TOR,BC,WPG. Who ends up on top will be the team who can beat the other two more often.
-
- Willie J - One man wrecking crew
- Brady O - Thorax man had a great game
- Wolo - First TD got the monkey off of our back
HH - Daramy-Swaray - Pulling the ball out in the endzone saved a TD
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Jesse said:
Nope, it’s just that both things can be true.
Nope he's saying A happened because of B, not A happened because of B & C.
-
Stupid game... Ouellette
-
55 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
Anybody out there saying that? I see people saying the Bombers got their asses handed to them because they played a piss poor game.
You on the other hand are out here saying the lions were the only factor in how the game unfolded as it did. And surprise! You're wrong again.
You are saying it. The highlighted part is the definition of they got beaten because they beat themselves.
I on the other hand am saying the Lions beat them, and I'm right. Everyone knows it, but some don't want to admit it because it goes against their personal, blue goggles, chugging the Kool Aid, belief system.
-
3 hours ago, 17to85 said:
He is just doing his usual shtick where he can't recognize nuance and things are either black or white, and since the lions played well then they must simply have made the Bombers look bad.
It's pure huberis to think that the Bombers can't be beaten unless they beat themselves.
-
The Bombers can't lose if they don't crap the bed is just a comforting lie that fans tell.
The unpleasant truth is that the Lions beat us & it wasn't even close.
- BigBlueFanatic, voodoochylde and Noeller
-
1
-
2
-
15 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
This is such a pants on head ******** comment to make.
HAI GUYZ!!! TEH SKY IS BLUE!!!11!!1
BC played better than winnipeg did in the game, no ****... that's why winnipeg lost and BC won. That's not what anyone is arguing about. That wasn't the usual effort or execution level from many of the bomber players or coaches. THAT is what people are talking about. You can't deny that. The OL through 2 weeks was dominant and looked worse than the times we trotted out the likes of Skinny Dan Gyetvai at left tackle. But yeah must be totally just because of what BC was doing. sometimes guys have a stinker of a game. Did BC play well? yup they did. Did they look better than they would have because of some poor play from the Bombers? yup certainly happened too.
Lack of execution on the Bombers part or was it that the Lions wouldn't let us execute any better than we did?
Is it more likely that the Bombers all stunk at the same time, except our FG kicker who was perfect, or is it more likely that the Lions caused our stinkage?
Is it likely that the OL that dominated Hamilton and SKN's D lines might not be good enough to dominate BC's D line?
-
1 hour ago, Brandon said:
So what you are saying is that the way the Bombers played was on par or equal to how they have played this season and previous years and that BC had a spectacular performance far better then anything they've shown in that same amount of time?
That's the argument that I'm getting from reading these back and forths?
How on earth did you get that from what I typed?
We're not the same team we were last year, especially with the injuries.
BC is not the same team they were last year, cuz Rourke & Burnham.
BC & WPG came into the game at 2-0.
BC's allowed 1 TD this year and shut out EDM.
BC stopped our offense that had scored 40+ point per game to 2 FG's.
BC's performance was the same as it was for the first two games, not far better than anything they've shown.
WPG played the best game they could on the day. BC also played the best game they could on the day. The result was BC dominance.
-
18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
You know both perspectives can be true right?
I mean christ I have never seen Stanley Bryant play that badly and he's arguably the best ever OL in cfl history. So in that aspect yes I say it was uncharacteristic pants pooping by a bomber player.
You know that GCNxx is just looking for an argument right? His view of reality simply can't fathom that the Bombers could be beaten like a rented mule unless the Bombers players all had bad days at the same time.
Bryant had a bad night, but that in itself doesn't explain the 6 points the offence scored or the 30 points the Lions scored.
Ponies @ Fort Hew (#DefendTheFort): The MahFaggin GDT
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
I actually never met the guy, but I thought he was funny. He triggered all the right people all the time.