TBURGESS

CFL Game Notes: http://cflmedia.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=3513&Itemid=5 Courtesy of Stats Junkie on that other site. A few things stick out to me: 1. We've scored 11 more points then Montreal, but have given up 47 more points than them in just 2 games. 2. Montreal held a pretty good Calgary offence to 11 points last week. 3. We beat them both times we played them last year. 4. 1 and 1 is good enough for a tie for last in the East and a tie for first in the West. 5. Mtl beat Cgy who beat Ham

I can see what's in it for Neufeld. I don't see what's in it for the Bombers. If there's no room for him on the 46, then it doesn't matter if he practises or not.

Good morning TB....coming to you from post #290. What, no comment? Still won't let it go eh? Keeping a player out doesn't equal keeping a player out who's close for his protection.

Neufeld on the 1 game again. Still don't see any reason we took him of the 6 game early.

Yuk it up boys. The Bombers and their medical staff are completely above board. They've have never brought a franchise player back too soon from injury, especially a head shot. There's not a snowball's hope in hell that they'd ever do that. BTW: Buck says hello.

Straight from the book of illogical thinking...TBurg style. Typical Mr. Dee, You're wrong, you won't admit it and you won't let it go.

Not so fast Bucko. You didn't answer my question that frames the basis of my examples. Logically, you wouldn't hold out 2 NI receivers if they were healthy. So, if they weren't injured, why do it? Because they were close...but not close enough is my answer.Your making stuff up. Why hold them out? Because they were injured. Period. Full stop. Close? Who knows? One of your examples was a day away, which became a day or two, which became a week or more. Was he close one day 1? Nope. Day 2? Nope. Repeated until he finally practiced. It doesn't prove what your saying it does.

Yeah, I knew you targeted me, but on the other hand...neither can you prove it wrong.But I ask you, why would they hold out 2 NI receivers if they were healthy? Of course I can't prove it wrong. That's the whole point. You have no idea if they were ready to play or not, but you used them as examples of the Bombers not allowing players to compete if they were close. There is no way of knowing either way if that's a true statement or not given the amount of info the Bombers release on injured players. I simply called you on it. For some reason you took that as a shot against O'Shea. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread about Willy...

I'm going Harris this week. Sask has a hard time stopping the run.

How do you know that Kohlert and Richards were close to being ready when the Bombers don't give any injury details?That's what you got from that post?Or is that another back-handed slap at Mike O'Shea? What I got from the post is you making statements that you can't possibly back up.

How do you know that Kohlert and Richards were close to being ready when the Bombers don't give any injury details?

I agree with Doug Browns assessment... If you believe Willy wasn't knocked out, I've got a bridge to sell you. Willy saying he wasn't out, is more than a little suspect. Either he doesn't know that he was out or he's saying what he needs to say to get back in the game. Dude wasn't on the field with his eyes closed taking a quick nap. The Bombers didn't report it as a concussion.... they reported it as an 'Upper Body Injury'. The reporters and most folks on this site saw many angles of it. It amazes me, how different folks see the same things and come to different conclusions. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution in this case. I don't want a repeat of Buck coming back too early and becoming broken for good.

Using tweets as clickbait makes some sense, but I can imagine what the reaction would be to: "Who's making great catches today in practice? Check out my article in tomorrow's paper.". or "Is Willy looking good? Check out my report" or "What a great INT!!! Check out my column". No reason they should give it away for nothing. It'd be great if some tweeting fans were there to provide their insight though.

They are newspaper reporters. Tweeting isn't what they are there to do. They're there to get info for their columns tomorrow.

I hope that's not a premonition. Yikes! What a bad typo on my part. LOL

I'm wondering which Bomber team shows up. The one that looked like a real football team and beat up the Riders or the one that looked like they were completely lost against Hamilton? Is our offense really the one that chewed up yards on the ground and in the air against Regina or the one that threw Int's and rang up 2 and outs vs Montreal? Our defense has been consistently bad in both games, but we will be facing a rookie QB, right out of college with one game of experience under his belt and some film on him. If we give up over 400 yards again, then something is seriously wrong no matter if O'Shea is worried or not about it. The biggest question is: Is Willy really OK or not? I know I'll be hold my breath every time he gets hit and I know I won't be alone. We are completely healthy for the first time in a couple of years and Montreal has a ton of injuries (7 on the 1 game and 10 on the 6 game including Crompton, Hebert, and Woods) On paper, we should win this one, but games aren't played on paper,

That's great news SPUDS because we've now got film on Cato so we should be able to make him look like Brohm this week. I expect he'll start throwing the ball at the receiver's feet instead of on the numbers and will forget how to handle the blitz. Should be pretty easy to beat Montreal now. (It's sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on that)

Cato, straight out of college had 1 TC + a week of practice in Montreal. Brohm's had 2 TC's, a full season of practice in Winnipeg, plus a year in Hamilton, plus Las Vegas, plus Buffalo, plus Green Bay. Huge difference in the amount of experience each has.

if I recall, the ref was staring right at the QB and Willy clearly reacted to the hit to his face. I'd say that the ref saw it and simply felt it wasnt a penalty because of the positioning of all involved. That's not his decision to make. Helmet to helmet = penalty. Intent doesn't matter at all.

Hall's defence is like Burke's defence. Its effectiveness is predicated on above-average front-four pass rush, and above-average cornerback play. He inherited much of Etcheverry's talent, and therefore, he either doesn't have the talent, or the talent needs to get acclimated to his D. I think the talent's the issue personally, but that's just one man's opinion. Bottom line is Hall's scheme can be effective once it's got the right talent, and that talent gels. Neither is there yet, and the results are what we see on the field. Hall's defence is a problem that can be solved by modifying the defence to match the players we have. Good coaches make changes to put the players they have into the best possible situations to excel. Hall's defence would work better if we had an all-star defensive line with a solid group of LB's behind them. Everyone's defence would. We don't have that luxury and we will lose a lot of games if Hall can't figure out what to do with the players he has. I consider it a failure in scouting that we have 3 of the 4 starters from last years D line starting again this year. Anderson and Turner aren't providing much push and Peach is more of a backup than a starter IMO. Westerman just needs to be an average DE due to his passport, but he hasn't found his game and he's not there yet, but it's still early. Our LB's have been a major problem so far. Randle's a top end CB being wasted in the LB crew. He's not even up to average there. Hurl's a rotation MLB, not a ratio breaker and Bass is the best of the bunch that we brought in in the offseason. All the above leads me to believe that its both personal and coaching with some scouting problems thrown in.

Post counts naturally go up when we lose because people need to vent their frustration after a bad week.. The 'O'Shea brigade' wants to point out the good things that happened, the few plays that 'if they just went the other way' would have led us to victory and the usual complaints about the reffing. They don't want any 'negative' posting and they go out of their way to argue with folks who see the dark side of the loss. There are some 'Fire everybody' posts after particularly bad games and lots of discussion about what went wrong and if we can fix it. When we win, everyone is pretty darned happy. Most folks just post how great we were. The 'O'Shea brigade' have very few people to argue with and the analysis of what went wrong is significantly less than when we lose because it doesn't matter as much. The newbies around here will notice the trend if they stay around long enough. For me, the more fans there are around here, the better, even those who don't seem to know that much about football.

People around here want it to be one thing or another, but it's not. QB's get hit a lot in MB offenses. Even Calvillo and he was the best at pre-reading defences in the CFL. It looked like JFG didn't pick up that there was a blitz, therefore he didn't change his route and Willy threw it to a spot on his Int. MB needs to add screens, draws and quick hitters to the offence and the players need to pick up on the blitz properly to fix the problem.

0-4 week 1, 2-2 week 2. I'm sucking, but at least I'm moving in the right direction.

This is great news as long as Willy's completely OK. I just hope they aren't putting him back in the game too soon.

Having to go for 2 in OT isn't a new rule. In that case, I don't like any part of the new rules.