blueandgoldguy

13th man is the only reason he has no cup in sasky. Wasting three years of your coaching/oc career with one of the worst GMs of all time does not help either.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. A 61-yard field goal kick that has never been made in a dome in the history of the CFL has about equal odds of success as a 3rd and four (someone already pointed out the success rate of 4 of 12 on 3rd and four attempts in the CFL this year). Use some common sense man. I thought you were the resident expert on football around here?

30% or so success rate on 3rd and 4 is not nearly 0. A 61-yard field goal attempt that has never been made in a dome is though.

Qb is the most important position in team pro sports and teams trade non-import assets for them all the time. If we don't make an attempt for Franklin, who else is out there that has the potential to be a star QB? The bombers have been unable to recruit a player from down south in 26 years. Kyle Walters might be different but I wouldn't count on it. So far, our two primary starters were players he signed and traded for from other teams - Willy and Nichols - not players he scouted and signed from down south.

Khari set all sorts of records with Paul as OC so I don't buy that. There were some plays out there for Nichols in the second half and he failed to capitalize. Bombers can win a Grey Cup with Lapo as OC but I doubt they will with Matt Nichols.

When you have an average starter at QB the play-calling will reflect that - safe and conservative. A better Qb would lead to more aggressive play-calling.

lol, no they are not. 30% is greater than 1 or 0%.

Defense played the biggest role in loss yesterday, followed by O'Shea's inexplicable blunder at the end. Nichols played a role in the loss though. If he actually generated a TD drive in the second half like one of the better starters in the league would have, the game would not have come down to a bad decision from O'Shea. Nichols is one of the weakest starters in the league and the Bombers will have to better than most other teams like BC, Edmonton, Ottawa, Calgary, Hamilton in all other areas - running, special teams, defense - to compensate for the lack of quality at the QB position. Right now, they aren't and it's unlikely that will happen anytime soon. Right now, Nichols is the undisputed starter on the team and bringing back our current backups and whatever signings or castoffs Walters brings in from down south is will not result in any serious competition for the starter's spot next season (Bombers are incapable of recruiting and developing their own Qbs; we have known this for a generation or longer now). The best bet would be to use a first round pick+ to entice the Eskimos to trade Franklin to the Bombers and get him signed to an extension. That would provide legit competition at next year's camp. Franklin has shown quite well in the games he has played and started in this season and last. Despite these limited appearances, all indications are he will be a star Qb in the league. This is similar to Mike Reilly, who despite even more limited appearances with the Lions, was touted to be a star Qb when he was given the starter's job and proved to be just that with Edmonton. Hopefully Walters has the courage to make a move for Franklin which should put this team on a more even standing at the Qb position with other teams in the league. The Bombers have the assets to make such a move thanks to the WIlly deal and shouldn't be afraid to use them accordingly. Get it done Walters.

I looked at the game log and there was 3 seconds left in that game so they choice would have been a) have Leone kick a 61 yarder which is what the Lions did - probably 1% chance of succeeding OR b. throw a hail mary to the end zone - less than one percent chance of succeeding There was 36 seconds in the Bomber game. Bomber choices were a) kick field goal - which they did - again, less than 1% chance of succeeding b. gamble on third and 4 - probably had 40 - 50% chance of succeeding. They would have also had time for 2 or 3 more plays had they made it. Please don't attempt to draw comparisons between a nearly impossible field goal attempt with 3 seconds on the clock vs one with 36 seconds on the clock. It's insulting. O'shea's decision defied logic.

Was that attempt earlier in the year made with 36 seconds on the clock and time for 3 more plays? Because if it was made with less than 7-8 seconds left and/or an incredibly long yardage to get the first down, it is of little relevance to the terrible decision O'Shea made.

They did run it a few times and he only had one gain over 3 yards in the second half. It's not like Harris would have busted several for 10+ yards if the Bombers had given him 5 extra carries. Besides they used him in the pass game.

I took a look at the numbers and the Bomber offense had 185 yards in the second half (not including yardage from penalties). BC's offense gained over 220 yards in offense in the second half (again, not including yards gained on penalties). Bomber offense came away with a measly 2 field goals in the second half which is simply not good enough. BC, on the other hand, had 3 tds in the second half. Three of them came on their last 4 possessions. The Bomber offense deserves criticism for the poor second half as 2 field goal with perfect conditions inside a dome stadium is less than adequate. We have seen this story too often from Nichols with his inability to generate TDs inside the opponent's 30 yard line on a regular basis. Happened again today. I don't think he is the quarterback to lead us to a Grey Cup unless we have a fantastic D and an amazing run game (see 1990). He is probably the worst starter in the West and the Bombers would need other areas of the team to be better than those of the 4 other western teams to compensate for the gap - a tall, if not, impossible task. With that said, the majority of the blame lies with the defense. When the Bombers needed some stops in the second half, the D failed time and time again. 3 TDs in BC's last 4 possessions is an absolute joke. Similar story for much of the season - over 500 yards total offense given up, 31 first downs by BC - saw this happen quite a bit this season, but this time we did not get 4 or 5 turnovers to compensate. Not sure if it's the front 4 and a couple of the linebackers or if it's Richie Hall's schemes. Perhaps both? One thing is for sure, there need's to be some drastic changes because the Bombers can't count on a similar turnover ratio for next season. As for O'Shea, that was a dumb move at the end and probably worse than any single coaching decision I ever recall Paul Lapolice making in his tenure as head coach. Think about it - what has a higher chance of success? A gamble on third and 4 (remember the team did have over 180 yards on offense and 10 First downs in the second half so they did actually did move the ball) with plenty of time on the clock OR a 61-yard field goal in a dome which has never been successfully completed in CFL history. A coach should play the odds and not a hunch. O'Shea failed in this situation. Hopefully he actually learns something from this and stops with the stubborness.

I would love to see him in Winnipeg as I think he has already displayed enough ability to be an average starter in the league. Upside is much higher than that of Nichols who is at best an average QB. If the Bombers could trade their first for him and lock him up with an extension they should do it.

2 of our last 3 home games have been horrible. So much for home field advantage!

While Nichols is an improvement on Willy he is still nothing more than the 7th or 8th best QB in the league. Unless the Bombers have a dominant run game and dominant defense (they have neither) like they did in 1990 they will not be a win a Grey Cup with him at QB. This game with the garbage time TD brings back flashbacks to 2013 when we were out of games by the second half.

with the league being so pass heavy now and the rules slanted towards the offense with the chintzy PI calls 300 yards passing is no longer a big deal. I think Nicholls relied on turnovers to get field goals and TDs more than those other QBs - for reference, check out how often those other teams' defenses get them turnovers compared to the Bombers. Nicholls is also less likely to drive the field 70+ yards for a TD compared to those other QBs. He is also more likely to fail in the red zone than those other QBs settling for field goals instead. I'm pretty sure Nicholls relies on more YAC than the other QBS given the conservative nature of the offense The likes of Reilly and Mitchell are a step above Nicholls when it comes to the long ball. They can hit their receiver in full stride with him only having to slow down minimally if at all. Nicholls can do this, just not as often. Sometimes he badly underthrows the ball - see his poorly underthrown ball to Dressler last week. Dressler slowed down, turned around and came to a complete stop and the ball was still behind him and intercepted. Guys like Mitchell and Reilly are less likely to make that kind of terrible throw if at all.

I wouldn't expect the offense to ever carry this team. Not with Matt Nicholls at the helm. He is the 7th or 8th best QB in the league and he will not get better. A game manager, nothing more. Lapo will not open up the offense as a person of Nicholls abilities will not get you the results of a Collaros, Reilly or Mitchell.

Watching sportscentre the other day and they pointed out the Riders moved the ball slightly forward before the snap later in the game and there was no call. Riders had some big breaks in that game, but with that said, Hamilton should have not allowed the game to come down to a few plays like that. I guess they aren't as good as many, including myself, thought they were at the beginning of the season.

What's the problem? Do you have 3 butt cheeks?

Fair comment regarding the economy in Alberta. It has been two years since the bottom fell out on the price of oil. However, if the Flames continue to have sellouts/near sellouts in 2016/17, then I doubt the economy is the primary reason for the subpar attendance numbers of the Stamps. Flames tickets are much more expensive after all. Should this be the case, I can only surmise that there is a large subset of people who think the CFL is not big league or cool enough for them to attend.

Do the cameras cover and record every section of the stadium? And if they do how far away are the images recorded? Cameras that are 50 - 100 hundred feet away may catch a hundred or so people in the crowd at once at the time of the incident in which the incident can barely be seen. And as for the saying it had to have been recorded by someone or seen by hundreds of people- 1. the incident was probably over within a few seconds which probably wouldn't even be enough time for people to take out their phones and record it happening and 2. since there is a high likelihood that this incident did occur within a matter of seconds, a person within 10-20 feet may have missed it entirely for a number of reasons ie turned in another direction talking to friends; in a crowd, so other people obstructed the view; noise immediately around you may prevent you from hearing the taunts of the little boy. This is especially true if the incident was a partial accident. A few fans may taunt the boy which is also not cool, then there is a little bit of jostling and a beer is partially spilled on him. Some may view the same seen as an accident while others see it as deliberate and they could both be right.

Great choice. Best running back in Bomber history.

Why do you assume that? Think the worst of people and their motivations? My point is, many posters here are saying stupid things like "something doesn't add up." with nothing to substantiate it other than their own biasness. The person in question reporting this incident has every right to and should not be case in suspicion - no different than one who goes online to give a review of a hotel, tour or restaurant they frequented. People also have different viewpoints of situations based on a number of factors. Two people watch a child having beer spilled on their head as a mother gets into an argument with a couple of drunken girls - one could say it was deliberate while the other could say it was accidental given the persons' drunken, animated state. Both could be correct in this situation. It is absolutely deplorable that people here will jump to such ridiculous conclusions based on a hunch. Maybe you folks also believe 9/11 was an inside job too.

Some of the stuff I read on here makes me shake my head. Something doesn't add up because it wasn't recorded on a smartphone? You know not everyone stops to record an incident when it happens in real time...especially if a dozen or so people only see it. And because she posted this on a few sites it means she expects to receive free schwag and tickets? Maybe just maybe she wanted to express her concerns over fan behaviour at games in hopes the club will do something to change it - the more mediums you use, the more likely the club will do something to change it. It must be tough going through life being so cynical of the actions of others. I believe on the other site there has been confirmation that the alleged incidents did in fact happen. Also, contrary to popular belief, people tend not to get involved when they observe a bad situation. They like to think they would but when the chips are down most chose not to out of self-preservation, they freeze not really knowing how to approach the situation, etc. I am frankly ashamed of those here who think this was embellished by the lady or the child in question. Hang your heads in shame!

With all the whining going on at Riderfans, I felt it pertinent to dig up this thread. Led by the lead Admin, Rider_Stronson, there have been talks over there of conspiracies, scams, incompetence, the worst reffed game in history all against the Riders because of a ticky-tack PI call on Cox late in the game. It's funny that the Rider fans conveniently forget that the primary reason for their sole victory this season was due to a ticky-tack call on the Ottawa defender late in the game several weeks ago PLUS a questionable non-call on the Saskatchewan defender as I described above. See evidence of the play below... But continue on with the never-ending conspiracies of how the league is out to get the Riders and how they never benefit from questionable calls. This train of thought is contradicted by the above video evidence. In the end, bad or questionable calls tend to balance out over the course of a season for each team, including the Riders. If I don't see any responses from Rider fans I will assume you will agree with me.