AKAChip

Sure except Nichols #'s are against OTT, TOR, BC, EDM.
Collaros went 4-0 against the 3 best opposing D's in the league and didn't turn it over once in the playoffs.  Hell of a stretch to try to say Nichols could have done the same, we'll never know.

This isn’t always true. Very often the top pick busts because there’s pressure to select a guy who is safe with less risk of being in the NFL a long time. That’s how we end up with the Shomari Williamses and Faith Ekakities and Shane Richardses of the world. Usually there are a number of good guys left at 9 because the desperate teams don’t want guys with high flight risk. 

Not to mention that there were three bad teams in the CFL this season. The Bombers played those teams a combined six times and Nichols’ was the starter for all of them. Yes, a player can’t control the team he plays but no doubt that buoyed his win-loss total significantly. 

There was a great chart posted in another thread showing how far from the LOS most of Nichols’ completions were and while I don’t want to overstate the exact number, something like 70% of his completions were within 5 yards of the LOS. The visual was staggering. Not all numbers are created equal. 

As an extremely poor measure of a QB’s effectiveness and I would hope you know that. Do you consider the Bombers’ 3-0 record in the playoffs in non-Nichols’ starts compared to 1-3 with him to be significant? It goes both ways. 

Just like the two seasons before, Nichols regressed hard as the season went on. For all you say about people ignoring the good things Nichols does in favour of the little things, I just can’t agree. It’s been explained many times in reasonable terms why Nichols’ record as a starter is inflated and it’s insanely frustrating when those with measured criticism of him get responses like “But he was 7-2!!!” and “71% completion percentage!!” 
I am a huge fan of Streveler but can recognize his limitations right now as a starting QB. It feels like fans of Nichols see any criticism of him as a need to dig in their heels and make him out to be more than he is. And this is all before a major injury to his throwing shoulder. A similar injury which sunk Lulay’s career and Lulay at his best was 10x the QB that Nichols could ever hope to be. 
I realize that not all criticism is fair and balanced but there are plenty of good reasons to believe that Nichols was fairly poor in most games he played this season and even more reasons to believe he’s not the guy we should want starting for this team going forward. I say this with the full knowledge that he will be re-signed and handed the starting job next season and sure, O’Shea has earned the right to do things his way. It’s just not the route that I would take for a number of reasons. 

We were lucky that Nichols got hurt. He wouldn't have got us past Calgary, let alone have won the cup.

As an extremely poor measure of a QB’s effectiveness and I would hope you know that. Do you consider the Bombers’ 3-0 record in the playoffs in non-Nichols’ starts compared to 1-3 with him to be significant? It goes both ways. 

As an extremely poor measure of a QB’s effectiveness and I would hope you know that. Do you consider the Bombers’ 3-0 record in the playoffs in non-Nichols’ starts compared to 1-3 with him to be significant? It goes both ways. 

There was a great chart posted in another thread showing how far from the LOS most of Nichols’ completions were and while I don’t want to overstate the exact number, something like 70% of his completions were within 5 yards of the LOS. The visual was staggering. Not all numbers are created equal. 

222 yards passing in the Grey Cup.
The ability to make those tight window throws to get first downs and quick throws to beat pressure is the big issue to me.  Nichols was by far the worst of the 3 who started for us this season at these two things, yes even worse than Streveler.  Our ability to score enough points this season with Nichols was hugely dependent on two things, the D/ST dominating field position and providing our offense with many possessions starting on the opponent side of midfield (or just scoring themselves) and Harris.  There weren't many 60-70-80 yard scoring drives even against crap opponents.  Too many games we've lost the past two seasons with Nichols simply as a result of our O not being able to stay on the field.
There's lots of issues with scheme too, but Nichols has never looked the same since the knee injury just prior to 2018, and I'm not sure I want to hitch my wagon to his recovery from a pretty significant shoulder joint injury.
 

You mean when Nichols played against all the easy teams and padded his stats?   He played Ottawa, BC and Toronto each twice. 
How did his last 4 games go ...  under 200 yards passing  only 3 TD to 4 ints.... fell down at the slightest hint of pressure... and this was against easy teams.  
Collaros comes in late in the season with out any familiarity with the offense or the players and completely out shines him playing against elite teams.    I dont' want LaPo anymore as an OC  but that makes it clear as day that the issue is at QB.  
Just because you and Noeller bark at the thought of anyone crapping on Nichols doesn't mean you are right.  
Nichols in his last 3 games was trending at 175 yards passing per game with two of the games against BC and Toronto.   This was with Harris and mostly healthy line up.    The guy at this point should be a veteran insurance back up like Glenn was in his last years. 

There's really not a lot of griping going on here. We're discussing what we should do with this roster going forward. Nichols is a soon to be 34-year old with a significant throwing shoulder injury. Pretending like he's a must-sign and we are guaranteed success with him going forward is arguably a more ridiculous take than the alternative. 

There's really not a lot of griping going on here. We're discussing what we should do with this roster going forward. Nichols is a soon to be 34-year old with a significant throwing shoulder injury. Pretending like he's a must-sign and we are guaranteed success with him going forward is arguably a more ridiculous take than the alternative. 

There's really not a lot of griping going on here. We're discussing what we should do with this roster going forward. Nichols is a soon to be 34-year old with a significant throwing shoulder injury. Pretending like he's a must-sign and we are guaranteed success with him going forward is arguably a more ridiculous take than the alternative. 

Thinking the Bombers are better off without Matt Nichols is hardly an insane take, and plenty of people far smarter than me have the same opinion. Though I will admit now that they have won the cup, I’ve softened my stance on being desperate to get rid of him since there’s less urgency now. I appreciate the argument that we would have gotten more or less the same production out of Nichols that Collaros gave us and from a yards perspective, that’s probably true. But the pocket movement and awareness that Collaros has is miles better. Still, the defence was beyond dominant in all three games so yes, we more than likely win even with below average QB play. 
 
Still, Nichols is and always will be a QB that requires the rest of the team to do more or less everything right to be successful. And it’s very good timing that he joined this team just as the rest of the roster was starting to take shape. With a recent championship taking the pressure off, I don’t see a ton of long term benefit of sticking with a guy that has basically no upside, will be handed the starting job and be given an insanely long leash. 

Thinking the Bombers are better off without Matt Nichols is hardly an insane take, and plenty of people far smarter than me have the same opinion. Though I will admit now that they have won the cup, I’ve softened my stance on being desperate to get rid of him since there’s less urgency now. I appreciate the argument that we would have gotten more or less the same production out of Nichols that Collaros gave us and from a yards perspective, that’s probably true. But the pocket movement and awareness that Collaros has is miles better. Still, the defence was beyond dominant in all three games so yes, we more than likely win even with below average QB play. 
 
Still, Nichols is and always will be a QB that requires the rest of the team to do more or less everything right to be successful. And it’s very good timing that he joined this team just as the rest of the roster was starting to take shape. With a recent championship taking the pressure off, I don’t see a ton of long term benefit of sticking with a guy that has basically no upside, will be handed the starting job and be given an insanely long leash. 

Honestly I think there is a significant chance that the 2020 starter will be someone completely new via free agency.
I personally would prefer to move on from Nichols, and I don't think they'll re-sign Collaros given the first round draft pick price tag. I'd like to bring back Streveler and see if we can develop him more as a passer. 

Thinking the Bombers are better off without Matt Nichols is hardly an insane take, and plenty of people far smarter than me have the same opinion. Though I will admit now that they have won the cup, I’ve softened my stance on being desperate to get rid of him since there’s less urgency now. I appreciate the argument that we would have gotten more or less the same production out of Nichols that Collaros gave us and from a yards perspective, that’s probably true. But the pocket movement and awareness that Collaros has is miles better. Still, the defence was beyond dominant in all three games so yes, we more than likely win even with below average QB play. 
 
Still, Nichols is and always will be a QB that requires the rest of the team to do more or less everything right to be successful. And it’s very good timing that he joined this team just as the rest of the roster was starting to take shape. With a recent championship taking the pressure off, I don’t see a ton of long term benefit of sticking with a guy that has basically no upside, will be handed the starting job and be given an insanely long leash. 

We were the highest scoring TEAM in the league.  You can win with Nichols providing the competition is relatively average/poor and D/ST score a lot.  Sort of the Sask 2018 model with Collaros.  I don’t think you win a Grey Cup that way.
Our D and ST scored just under 9 points a game directly in our first 7 wins and handed the ball over to the O inside the red zone almost once a game in the 7 wins.  So that’s about 13 points per game on average from the D/ST, and we were scoring just over 30 in those games.
A good O on its own should put up 21-24 points a game and a great one is more like 27-28.  With Nichols we were well under 20 this season even in wins against mostly putrid opposition (Ottawa x2, BC x2, Edmonton, Toronto, Calgary Janarion night).
Nichols was pretty bad to close 18, worse in 19 and now coming off a devastating injury to his throwing shoulder.
To me at this point I’d bring in an OC who can scheme RPO and a great run/screen game and go all-in on Streveler with Nichols or Collaros backing up.

Also cut Nichols now ... who cares if he gets pissy about the money... I'd rather save the money and risk losing him and moving on with McGuire and Strevs. 

You have to assume that Arbuckle wouldn't command Masoli money. He may not even command Nichols money. I like both Streveler and McGuire as long term prospects, but Arbuckle is clearly the best option when combining salary, age and potential. Especially if Streveler wants to come back with the understanding that he will fill a similar role to what he had in the playoffs. 

You have to assume that Arbuckle wouldn't command Masoli money. He may not even command Nichols money. I like both Streveler and McGuire as long term prospects, but Arbuckle is clearly the best option when combining salary, age and potential. Especially if Streveler wants to come back with the understanding that he will fill a similar role to what he had in the playoffs. 

You have to assume that Arbuckle wouldn't command Masoli money. He may not even command Nichols money. I like both Streveler and McGuire as long term prospects, but Arbuckle is clearly the best option when combining salary, age and potential. Especially if Streveler wants to come back with the understanding that he will fill a similar role to what he had in the playoffs. 

You have to assume that Arbuckle wouldn't command Masoli money. He may not even command Nichols money. I like both Streveler and McGuire as long term prospects, but Arbuckle is clearly the best option when combining salary, age and potential. Especially if Streveler wants to come back with the understanding that he will fill a similar role to what he had in the playoffs.