Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TrueBlue4ever

Members
  • Content Count

    1197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

TrueBlue4ever last won the day on March 4

TrueBlue4ever had the most liked content!

About TrueBlue4ever

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1774 profile views
  1. Yep. That first INT on the deep toss to Adams was an underthrow, but I put responsibility on Adams for not adjusting to or fighting for the ball. And I liked the decision to push for the end zone late in the half, it just wasn't executed well, and I can live with a physical mistake once in a while. It's the mental error of throwing into triple coverage or not looking off the DB and telegraphing the throw that needs to be corrected. But again. that is not the coordinator putting the QB in a position to fail, it's just a lack of execution on a certain play.
  2. Your consistent, repeated, obscenity-laden posts would seem to indicate that you very much DO give a **** what Rider fans think, otherwise you wouldn't give them the satisfaction of a response letting them know how much it gets under your skin. They must laugh at how much they can trigger many members of this board. Rise above, people.
  3. The Bomber chain looks like the one Jamarcus Hardrick had 2 years ago for his player profile video they put up on the jumbotron when they highlight a player. He was wearing this big thick chain and did the "junkyard dog" crawl if the offence scored a TD. Maybe it morphed into the "links in a chain" thing, maybe they co-opted the Sask. "Chain of honour" idea and just made up the story to fit it, who knows, but I think the actual chain has been around a while, just going public with it now.
  4. On an underthrow. The one completed deep ball was also an underthrow. So was the second INT in Sask. At least in the Hamilton game Streveler's 2 deep attempts to open receivers were overthrows. It's nice to say push it deep, but we also have to execute the plays with either open receivers or on-target throws. And who knows how many drop back plays have a deep target as one of the options, but the QB opted not to take the shot? The OC can be responsible for many things, but running through progressions and taking the deep shot is not all on LaPo unless the play call is "throw it to this one guy no matter what because there is no secondary option". Now I don't have the playbook , so I don't know if that is the case in which case it is all his fault, but neither does anyone else who is certain that Streveler is not responsible because it has to be the play call and nothing else.
  5. What I meant was, since he is not proving to be a deep threat and being able to create separation on his downfield routes despite this supposed speed, then give him those hitch screen passes at the line of scrimmage where he isn't covered, and see what he can do to make people miss once the ball is in his hands.
  6. Nichols' slump last year in my mind was a mental thing, especially in the Banjo Bowl where he threw awful picks because he was forcing things, not because of the play call. The game in Montreal was going gangbusters for the offence until Streveler threw that late pick and momentum shifted with the Als' TD. Of course, not all his fault at all as the secondary couldn't cover to save their lives, but it was a factor. Same against Hamilton. The defence put us behind the 8 ball for sure, but that Streveler pick when we could have gotten within a TD was all on him, not the play call. The game in Saskatchewan, we managed to out-produce Sask. in offence, and blame LaPo all you want but you are kidding yourself if you think that and not Streveler's 3 turnovers in the red zone were the reason we lost. I think also that posters need to re-consider the "weapons" we have. Whitehead for all his speed has not been getting separation on the DBs on his routes lately, so getting the ball into his hands in space seems like a good option, no? And I don't see Demski as the star wide receiver you do. Same goes for Wolitarsky and Petermann. They are decent, but not game-breakers. Our weapon is clearly Harris, and our offence is designed around him. I too would like to see more balance, but maybe it's personnel driven. After all, there was some panic about our receiving corps before Matthews was signed late, and he turned out to be a bust (and if LaPo is solely to blame for his failure, then why has he been benched in Montreal too?) As for LaPo keeping it simple, yeah, the game plan is limit turnovers and we win games, Nichols excelled at that. And many here ***** when LaPo "outthinks himself and gets away from the game plan, and those same people ***** and moan when he "runs the predictable plays to Harris" and doesn't mix things up. So I see a lot of whining no matter how the game is called. Yet all his offense has done over the years is put up points and wins games with a non-marquee QB like Durant and Nichols. But that isn't enough excitement for some fans, I suppose. Me, I'll take efficient, boring wins, thank you very much.
  7. Well, I see Streveler's style as "if I have to throw, then I'll make the first read and then run" versus Nichols, who would go through his progressions. LaPo did adjust for Streveler in my mind, and it did work to an extent against Edmonton (although Willie Jefferson almost single-handedly won that game) and more so in the Banjo Bowl and in Montreal (4 TDs in the first 4 drives). The trouble is that it is easier to game plan against a runner at the QB position (I won't call him a running QB because he relies more on his running than passing, rather than using his legs as a weapon when the pass breaks down). You just get the MLB to spy the QB no matter what. Hamilton and Saskatchewan in the last 2 games both did that. So maybe Streveler needs to learn a different style as a QB, one that, you know, involves being able to throw more effectively, make better reads, and trust his progressions. Because other teams figured out how to defeat his run game. LaPo clearly had to make adjustments, and did so. Streveler will have to as well.
  8. I can only speak for myself, but if I give Streveler heat for throwing the odd INT, it's more to do with pointing out that it is not always LaPo's fault that the offence doesn't click like so many wish it to be because they so desperately wanted Streveler all along, even when Nichols was healthy and we were winning, and they can't bear to admit they were even a bit wrong. Those who thought the offence was dull (I'd use methodical and predicated on zero turnovers), predictable (hey, we have Andrew Harris, guess what we are going to do? - now try and stop us) and easy to defend against (apparently not given we were 7-2) now need to scapegoat LaPo and make excuses for Streveler when he makes obvious errors.
  9. The only way a 3 way tie can happen is if the Bombers and Stamps split as a starting point. If the Bombers sweep, they will have 12 wins and Calgary can get no more than 11 wins total. If we split, then we also need the Stamps to lose to BC and Saskatchewan to lose 2 of their remaining 3. Should all that happen, then in the tiebreak, we would be 3-3 overall against the other 2, Sask. would be 2-3, and Calgary would be 3-2, so in the 3 way tiebreak we finish in 2nd place. If we sweep Calgary, we guarantee 2nd place and still need Sask. to lose 2 of their remaining 3 to have any chance at 1st.
  10. As a Bomber fan, I have to say that that roughing the passer is a chintzy call.
  11. You know, it’s funny how good LaPo’s offence has looked when Streveler doesn’t turn the ball over 3 times in the red zone.
  12. I'm not orange, I'mpeach.
  13. Believe me I know the dominant narrative around here. Hope those “Streveleation” backers are happy with 2-4. I guess safe boring 7-2 first place winning with Nichols just wasn’t good enough for this fan base.
  14. You do know that there is more than one option on a pass play. Blaming that pass decision on the OC play call is just blind hatred to fit your pre-conceived bias.
×
×
  • Create New...