TrueBlue4ever

Lulay calls a lot of audibles and with the crowd noise that just wasn't going to work very well. Which makes the hurry up more confusing to me. Seemed like they wanted to not let the crowd reset, but it didn't work, and was obvious it wasn't working from the beginning. I got the sense it was more to keep the Bombers from changing personnel than to combat the noise. They went back to it when Hurl was out with equipment issues and Bass was hurt for that short spell. They found a way to keep them both off the field. But Lulay's passing accuracy took a hit after that first drive, and the secondary tightened up. that as much as anything changed the tempo of the game.

I am sure Jimi was back stage thinking "man how am I going to follow that?" Totally. He was like "Man, can't top that. Might as well just pack it in and burn my guitar"

Missed last night's game. Am I barred from making the other 3 picks? Seems so. If not, and it's just a glitch, I'll take Edmonton, Calgary and Hamilton.

Forgot about this until after the Bomber game started. if I can still pick from another game, I'll take Adarius Bowman. If not, I'm at 4 strikes already, so not like my stay of execution would have lasted long anyway.

Replace Cato with Troy Smith... Let's give it some time before we annoint Cato. Lots of guys have looked good initially but not been able to sustain it. I'll throw Casey Printers Joey Elliott in as another guy who had early success and wasn't able to keep it going. FIFY

That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now.

Two very good back-to-back posts gcn. I think you are bang on on both. This smacks of the Alex Brink/Joey Elliot situation three years ago (how soon we forget). Everyone hated Brink (with reason - he couldn't perform) and clamored for Elliot, then all the fan boys got their wish and Elliot started - and was competent for one game, sub-par by 2 once defences had tape on him, and had us begging for option #4 (or Buck's return) shortly thereafter. The Brohm situation needs to be separated from the Marve equation. Brohm is struggling mightily on the most basic stuff, namely getting the ball to the receiver on less than one hop. Mechanics? Confidence? The simple inability to throw a pass? I find it impossible to believe that he never had the skill in the first place, he's been around pro football for a decade, including the NFL. I saw him between plays in Edmonton actually pantomime the drop back and release motion before getting into the huddle, which I've never seen in a game before by a QB. Something is off in his head, and it was like he was trying to re-gain his muscle memory, much like a golfer after an errant swing or in his pre-shot routine. Got to think a lot of this is mental, and the constant chirping about Marve being better from the media and the chattering masses on this board, as well as being booed after one series at home has got to get to him, no matter how thick-skinned he is. Not sure he can re-gain that confidence again, or if the fan base will even give him that chance. Anyone want to give me odds on a bet that he will get booed in the first offensive drive BEFORE the first down pass - that is when he takes the field to start the first drive? 3:1? 2:1? Even money? I won't disagree that right now Marve couldn't be worse, but those who are waiting for a savior in him are most likely in for a rude awakening a la Elliot. The message from the team has been consistent (no need for conspiracy theories) - he doesn't follow the system (spare me the "it's because the system sucks" line - Willy seems to be doing more than well enough in it when he's not getting knocked out of games), and free lances way too much, doesn't go through progressions, and is so run-first mentality that he will be too easy to defend once teams figure that out and spy him with a linebacker and force him to beat them with his arm. The coaches clearly believe he is not ready yet, and Elliot is a great example on this very team how rushing a player into action because he "looks" better than option number 2 to the fans can be a recipe for disaster. I can hear people saying "Who is to say that Marve is bound to fail anyway? He's shown more and just needs that chance." OK, but clearly the coaches don't see it that way (and I'll still trust their judgment over a bunch of internet armchair QBs who have seen nothing but scrub-time action against prevent defences in Marve's case), and history has seen more examples of one-game wonders who flame out when pushed too quickly than those who instantly rise up and become stars out of nowhere. Patience among the fans has been exhausted by the 25 years of losing, and we are all praying for the next Ricky Ray/Rakeem Cato/Bo Levi Mitchell diamond in the rough, but sorry folks more patience is required. If you are out of patience right now, then you might as well turn in your tickets and stop visiting this board until the team is a solid contender again. See you in a couple of years if that is the case. I suspect the coaches are hoping that Brohm can get his head back into it and find that confidence again, at least enough to tread water, and that Marve and his skill set of stronger arm and better feet can pick up the mental stuff sooner than later. Actually I'm sure they are praying that Willy can play, and then the other stuff can be put off until it fixes itself over time, or adequate replacements can be made.

Garza. Sammy ******* Garza. Was that the son in law? You guys aren't even scratching the surface. Mark Jackson (back-up to Deiter Brock) Troy Kopp (minus 30 minutes vs Saskatchewan) Stefan LeFors Keithan McCant and the two biggies: T J Rubley Tee Martin

You don't……..and yet there will be 50 or so posts with variations on "Brohm sucks", "fire O'Shea/Bellefeuille/Hall/Walters", "Hurl needs to go", "Marve is our saviour", "you guys are just negatrons", "positrons are deluded", "blow it up and re-build", "we can't blow up again, give it time" (did I miss anything?) in the next 24 hours, all of it in CAPS LOCK YELLING. I'm going to enjoy my Sunday instead. The problems will still be there on Monday, but maybe the emotions will have cooled enough by then.

Maybe everyone should take 24 hours away from posting here and start with the deep analysis on Monday.

Fair enough, and that's great if it works. Always nice to be the genius who thinks outside the box and challenges the status quo - if the results are there. Sadly, the past recent history of the Bombers is that when they get guys in player personnel who march to the beat of their own drummer (Reinbold, Mack) and don't care what anyone else thinks about what is the right way to do things, their contrarian way of doing things has proven disasterous for the franchise.

If that's the case then all the more important to load up the box to stuff the run and force Nicholls to beat you with his arm. If he is Edmonton's best weapon, you have a real chance to beat them. Rain will only hurt his cause.

Bingo. One other possible weakness might be fatigue (if Nicholls plays down to his usual sub-par back-up QB form), or so we hope.

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line. No I'm not self-employed and I think that you seem to have missed what I was talking about. I'm not talking about the day to day stuff that every employee, management or otherwise, has to put up with. I'm talking about the core stuff that one does. If I'm hired to do a job and then I have a boss who wants to spend his time telling me how to do it, he and I would (and this has happened) have a conversation about why I was hired and what my expectations are for my job. If we can't come to a satisfactory understanding, then yes, it's time to move on. Fortunately, I've found that in most cases, if you show your superiors that yes, you do know your stuff and if you make sure that you keep them "in the loop" they tend to step back and let you do your thing. If not, then why in the world would someone stay where they really aren't respected or appreciated. I hear you and understand that viewpoint, so let's take it back to Taman's scenario. You get hired to manage a company. You have a boss (let's call him a CEO or "president") who is in control of the money, answers to shareholders, and wants a successful, profitable enterprise. You are in to be put in charge of the day-to-day stuff. You are given a budget to work with that is smaller and more restrictive than you would like, but the president says I can find another manager if you don't like the set-up, there are plenty of people looking to be managers and only 7 other companies like this one. You have grown up your whole adult life around this business and worked your way up to become a manager - do you turn this chance down on the principle that you have to make certain concessions to this president? You are in charge of hiring the new workers and assembling a "team" that can make your company successful and profitable. However, there are foremen (let's call them "coaches") who were already hired before you came in, and were hand-picked by the "president". You as the manager make sure the operation runs smoothly, the foreman oversees the workers directly. Your concession is that you have to accept the existing foremen and can't overhaul the whole staff yourself right away, but you are in charge of them. Not a problem because you actually work well with the foremen, and they have done a good job so far. Now fast forward a few years and the company has taken a hit, and the shareholders are angry. The president tells you he is pleased with your work, but hears about problems between the foremen and the workers, and recognizes that a culture change needs to happen. Calls you in and says that the foremen need to go because if nothing happens the shareholders pull out and the company collapses. You think the foremen can salvage the job, plus you have always had a good working relationship with them, but you know that the problems exist and status quo will not be acceptable to your higher ups. The president tells you point blank to fire the foremen and hire a new staff of your own choosing, and if you don't like it, we'll fire you instead, and then find a new manager who will fire the foremen. Remember that this isn't some McJob, this is your career and this ouster will follow you for the rest of your life in any future job interview. Do you really say "take a hike" on principle, knowing that every future job you apply for, the first thing your new prospective bosses will note is your defiance of authority? Or do you fire the guy who wasn't your pick anyway in the first place, bite your lip, and get on with your job? (Remember that Taman didn't run around yelling overtly about how his hands were tied, he used diplomacy and code-speak when everyone in the media knew anyway it was Bauer who pulled the trigger). Finally, Taman in the end did exactly what you suggest he should do if unsatisfied, which is walk away. When Kelly came in, Taman knew he could no longer accept his changed and diminished role, and opted out. He was willing to accept the job that was originally offered to him, but when the rules changed around him again and again, he adapted until he no longer could tolerate it, and then he stepped away. Hardly the back-stabbing, save my own hide to secure my survival coward that has been suggested by some. But I respect your point of view and was happy to engage in a thoughtful debate about it. I just think that it isn't so black and white in the real world that you can talk in absolutes like "if I disagree with my boss I tell them to take a hike, and if I lose my job, so be it - unlike Brendan Taman who would rather be a lap dog". Sorry if the "liar" tag came across as harsh, was trying for humour. (I thought Airplane! was always your go-to if you wanted to lighten the mood).

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line.

No way you would ever tell your boss to take a hike if he asked you to do something and you disagreed, knowing it would cost you your job.

LOL!! This is just fantastic.... Hey, it's ok, some people want to watch marionettes dance around, others don't. Personally, I'd love to have a job where I could sit in a chair collect a salary and have someone above me make all my decisions for me. Oh wait, I forgot, I actually have a spine and a brain and I know how to do my job, so maybe not. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighttttttt. Suuure you would.

Rod is on the Riders payroll.Might as well be. Didn't he get a ring along with the rest of the team when they won the Grey Cup back in 2013. I'm not kidding here, that's what I thought I heard.

Bakari Grant

No one is making the argument that Walters is a draft guru. Neither were you.Your argument was that Mack wasn't cut as much slack for an injury-prone developing draft choice. The counter-argument is that Walters doesn't have the repeated history of screwing up like Mack did...yet. If he does, I'm sure the knives will come out on this board as they always do. And if the baseline standard for greatness as a GM is Joe Mack, then the bar to be "the greatest" really isn't set too high, now is it?

The players made t-shirts. Odell Willis gave himself the nickname "The Mayor of Swaggerville", not anyone else.

If I was married to Mack, I would have been justified in leaving him because 17to85 was clearly in bed with him for all those years. And Mack should owe me alimony for all the season ticket money of mine he wasted while he was here. ;-)

Nothing wrong with it if that is what entertains you. Lots wrong with it if it doesn't. For those who dislike it, it smacked of arrogance, with players who were more about themselves than the team, and spent time telling people how great they were because it wasn't evident enough on its own merit. And I get the whole "it ain't bragging if you can back it up" concept, but if you are that good, your play will speak for you, not your proclamations. They were good, but the West-Battle-Jones-Brown era never had to brag because everyone feared them on their reputation of performance alone, and no one needed to be told how good they were, because everyone knew it just by watching them. They didn't have to convince anyone (maybe themselves?) with hot air. Plus, that arrogance comes with a healthy dose of humble pie and comeuppance when you lose (like touting an interception you made when losing 35-0 in Edmonton, right Jovon?), and that comeuppance can attach itself beyond the players to the fanbase. To each their own, I guess. Neither approach is right or wrong objectively, just a personal preference about how you like your professional athletes to act. I'd prefer my team spend time in practice working on fine-tuning football drills rather than choreographing TD and sack dances.

Pencer was crapped on immediately. I'm just pointing out the bit of hypocrisy that exists.You don't see any other differences in their situations?What's different? Both high draft picks that were a reach taken as high as they were and neither one was able to solidify a roster spot, except one had a lot of injury excuses at least.Oh, so that's where he went with it. How about: Goossen - taken #2, ranked #4 in o-linemen (#2 for those GMs thought wouldn't bolt to the NFL) and #9 overall, was 3 year conference all-star and captain of his college team heading into draft, no injury history from college or attitude issues to worry about that we know of, played in 15 games and started 3 in his first year, missed 3 games to injury last year before this year's injury woes at the start of camp in just his 2nd season. Pencer - Taken #3, ranked #6 among o-lineman and not even ranked overall on some draft projections, had serious injury concerns from his college days (both shoulders messed up and caused him to miss significant playing time in university football), walked away from one football program midstream for "personal" reasons, got hurt in practice pretty much right away, one start and 6 or so games on roster before being cut, picked up by Edmonton in may and cut by June this year having seen no action in his 4th season. And since your gripe is more about Mack not getting cut the same slack, Pencer wasn't his one-off in draft errors. His draft history of off-the-board Etienne, out-of-position Aprile, and never-going-to-see-the-CFL-anyway Mulumba gave him a lot less leeway to make a mistake when he got outplayed for Westerman and then begged people to believe that Pencer was his plan all along in trading up so he wouldn't have to admit he got schooled. If you want to (still repeatedly) defend Joe Mack, there are better ways to do it than by touting his draft record. Actually, there may not be a better way to defend Mack job-performance-wise, but I doubt there are many worse ways to do it.

Pencer was crapped on immediately. I'm just pointing out the bit of hypocrisy that exists.You don't see any other differences in their situations? Shh! 17 is trying (again) to defend Joe Mack and his draft strategy. Want to see where he goes with this argument.