TBURGESS

FITY

Sorry if I misinterpreted. If Reilly was throwing to Walker they likely win but that's receiver performance, not QB performance. .... and 1 fumble when when the DL got to him in the throwing motion.

Reilly played great and didn't win. 85.7% completions doesn't jive with 'teams have figured him out'. 350+ yards doesn't jive with 'obviously not moving the ball well enough'. None of his stats jive with 'not doing enough to win football games'. Reilly is doing enough, but last night his his special teams couldn't stop an onside kick, his defence couldn't stop a backup QB from scoring twice in the last couple of minutes and his HC went for 7 when he could have easily taken 3 at the end of the half. Change any of that, none of which have anything to do with the way Reilly played, and the Lions win.

Again... that's got nothing to do with QB play.

You're confusing wins with how well a QB plays. Reilly was 36/42, 85.7% for 354 yards with 2 TD's and 0 Ints last night. That's great QBing.

Saying Arbuckle is one of the top QB's in the league is silly at this point in time. So is not being able to disconnect a QB's performance from winning or losing. Reilly had an almost perfect game last night and lost. The loss wasn't his fault and it doesn't diminish how well he played.

The old 'I remember a game back in 2017 when Nichols played well at the very end and we won... he's obviously a great QB' argument. 😎 Followed by the old '300+ yards passing doesn't mean a guaranteed win' argument. Classic Gerry. Classic.

Of course it's obvious. It's also the reason that you don't judge a QB by the number of wins he has. ISO... Mike already answered for me.

It comes down to an average to below average QB on a good to great team will get lots of wins. An average to below average QB on an average to below average team won't get very many wins. The difference is the team, not the QB.

Nope and I'm going to give up again because you just won't listen to anything other than the voices in your own head.

Can we win a GC with Nichols? As long as the rest of the team plays great, yes. If we have to rely on Nichols to do something special, no. Tom Burgess wasn't a great QB who won a GC. He was an average, journeyman, game manager on a great team that won the GC.

Nope. You kept repeating that ad nauseam. I kept trying to correct you, but you wouldn't listen, so I gave up.

Nichols is a good QB cuz wins? 🤣 That's the dumbest thing I've read all week and yet it gets repeated over and over and over and over again. Nichols played well in week 1 for 3 out of 4 quarters. He didn't play well last night. He was simply the QB of record when we won. We are 2-0 and that's good. Doesn't mean the same thing as Nichols was good.

Our offence was 3 big plays and a big penalty. 1 of the big plays was a good throw by Nichols, the other 2 were all Whitehead and Demski. Nichols got more than half his yards on 2 throws, only one of which was a good throw. Passing yards aren't meaningless. What you're really saying is it's OK because we won. Folks are comparing QB play, not who won. If Nichols was on Edmonton last night, they would have still lost, had less yards passing and wouldn't have even been as close as they were. If Harris was on Winnipeg last night, we'd have won anyway, likely by more.

I don't understand your fixation on 300 yards.

I'd rather win than lose and ugly wins count as much as pretty wins, but that doesn't mean that Nichols played well.

That's only part of what folks said. They also said 300 wasn't that hard to get when you get 100 in 2 throws. Nichols 200 yards wasn't a big reason that we won the game. His first TD to Lucky was a good throw. His second TD to lucky was a poor throw followed by a great play by Whitehead to turn a 3 yard gain into a big TD. Demski's TD had nothing to do with Nichols. Our last TD was because of a penalty on the 5 yard line on a short throw. Nichols gets the win again, but he was just the QB of record again last night. IMO and Dunigan's he caught the ball, hit the ground with both feet, and then had the ball popped out by a hit. That's a catch and a fumble in my book and it would have been a catch/fumble in most folks around here's book if we had recovered the fumble.

In week 1 folks told me it was easy to get 300 yards if you get close to 100 on 2 throws. Nichols got 115 on two throws and just barely managed 200 yards.

Don't bring me into this. I didn't drop any. 😎

Lucky - The two biggest plays of the game Demski - Big play #3 Jeffcoat - Had to go with someone on the DL. HH - The Challenge refs back at head office for getting the PI right after the challenge and getting the catch and fumble wrong after Edmonton's challenge.

It was about a 5 yard play and IIRC Collins took a step before he dropped the ball, so it could have been ruled a catch and fumble. Then again, that's not how they ruled the Edmonton catch and fumble in the 4th, so who knows.

My problem isn't with TSN showing food or interviewing folks. It's that they do it when the game is going on in the background.

Harris - Andrew

Funny thing is that I thought I'd picked Hamilton not Toronto. I checked my picks on that other site.. "Hamilton @ Toronto - Ticats didn't look good last week but managed win anyway. Toronto will struggle early." I should have left the 'early' off completely. 🤣 I guess I clicked on the wrong team so no worries.

One more thing... TSN's coverage sucks. Spent 20 minutes hanging off every word that Ricky Ray said, while the game went on in the background, often in a split screen so we could watch Ricky Ray. Too much yammering about Hotdogs, Burgers and drinking from a shoe. Tell me about the freaking game. Tell me which players are coming in and going out. You know actual football stuff.