Goalie Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 O TDs and 3 picks will do that I guess. SPuDS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Quote At one point, bombers had 92 total yards on 0 and were winning 21-0. That's insane and unheard of really. That's ultra efficient. Quote 330 yards but had a 58 quarterback efficiency rate Drew Edwards End of Q1: #Ticats trail #Bombers 21-0. Matt Nichols efficiency: 182.92. Jeremiah Masoli: 18.23. Blue-urns and SPuDS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mr Dee said: Drew Edwards End of Q1: #Ticats trail #Bombers 21-0. Matt Nichols efficiency: 182.92. Jeremiah Masoli: 18.23. Whats a decimal point between friends? BigBlueFanatic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddanger Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 48 minutes ago, Mr Dee said: Drew Edwards End of Q1: #Ticats trail #Bombers 21-0. Matt Nichols efficiency: 182.92. Jeremiah Masoli: 18.23. A pick six really hurts your rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 13 hours ago, Mr Dee said: Drew Edwards End of Q1: #Ticats trail #Bombers 21-0. Matt Nichols efficiency: 182.92. Jeremiah Masoli: 18.23. is that possible?... I though the max was around 162, or something like that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 16 hours ago, wbbfan said: do you think we will win more then we lose giving up more passing yards then our combined offensive yards? If passing yards were the only factor in deciding a game, then no... but - as my original point said - if the opposing QB throws 300+yards and we give up less than 20 points... I like our chances most games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon37 Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Efficiency can count for a lot. While I wouldn't call Masoli's yardage "garbage time" it was spent largely in their end of the field. In this game their STs sucked balls and ours didn't and that gave Mazola a long field to deal with. So field position was a factor BUT you also need to have your D working. If you needed an example of this just look at the first Calgary touchdown in the fourth quarter last night. they had a long field but Sasks D collapsed and Calgary ran the field to score. Game over. Of course you want to give up as little as possible but you can win giving up 300 yards passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2L Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 (edited) Lots of teams giving up 300+ yards passing to Edmonton these days, how's that working out for the Eskimos with their three-game losing streak (and even their two wins were only by three and four points again Sask and us)? I'm in the "stats are for losers" camp. For the first five games all I heard were people defending Willy by using his stats but anyone watching him play would have seen how ineffective he was. So far this season, Nichols has two wins, zero losses, four TDs, zero INTs. I'll take those stats over any number of yards. Edited August 7, 2016 by O2L Tracker, blitzmore and TBURGESS 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbbfan Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 On 8/5/2016 at 8:34 AM, bearpants said: If passing yards were the only factor in deciding a game, then no... but - as my original point said - if the opposing QB throws 300+yards and we give up less than 20 points... I like our chances most games... its not just about passing yards its passing yards vs combines yards. If the opposing QB puts up 300 yards and less then 20 points they are going to have the kind of crazy one sided time of possession we fell to early this year. Its not a recipe for winning a lot of games. Especially when our offense is a slow plodding grind out first downs with short passes and runs type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bomber Fan Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 In my humble opinion the play calling in the first half was good. We need to create more openings for the running game or perhaps include some screens but I did like the fact that we now throw the ball further than 3-6 yards. I do remember years ago any receiver that ran a route less than 10 yards would be talked to when on the sidelines. Seems the game has changed so YAC is so important. I still think that if a receiver can run a 4.5 40 yard, they can get to 10 yards pretty quickly. Layer the receivers perhaps, corner routes, crosses are all good however let's make them 10 yards or more. That way we will move the sticks at ease and should a receiver have to adjust inside the 10 we should be able to make it up with a short run. I think it would also open up the run game more as well as the LBs would have to play off the line more unless they are going to blitz and then the screen comes into play. Old time football isn't dead it just isn't used any more not sure why. Doublezero 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALuCsRED Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 On August 5, 2016 at 8:09 AM, bearpants said: is that possible?... I though the max was around 162, or something like that.... No. from Wikipedia for NFL and CFL: "A perfect passer rating (158.3) requires at least a 77.5% completion rate, 12.5+ yards per attempt, a touchdown on at least 11.875% of attempts, and no interceptions." bearpants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbbfan Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 6 hours ago, Old Bomber Fan said: In my humble opinion the play calling in the first half was good. We need to create more openings for the running game or perhaps include some screens but I did like the fact that we now throw the ball further than 3-6 yards. I do remember years ago any receiver that ran a route less than 10 yards would be talked to when on the sidelines. Seems the game has changed so YAC is so important. I still think that if a receiver can run a 4.5 40 yard, they can get to 10 yards pretty quickly. Layer the receivers perhaps, corner routes, crosses are all good however let's make them 10 yards or more. That way we will move the sticks at ease and should a receiver have to adjust inside the 10 we should be able to make it up with a short run. I think it would also open up the run game more as well as the LBs would have to play off the line more unless they are going to blitz and then the screen comes into play. Old time football isn't dead it just isn't used any more not sure why. its hard to argue with the first half production. Especially in the first quarter. We had awesome field position aside from the first drive and capitalized. 40 times are a funny thing. Some guys, like blink are incredibly fast in their first step and 10 yard burst. But lack top end speed. Those fast twitch guys will clear 10 yards in a heart beat un impeded. Others like chris brazzel, take long strides and accelerate much slower. Not hitting full stride till much later. Often in football refereed to as gears. a 2 gear/speed runner like milt is in stride and then accelerates/explodes. And then there are slow twitch athletes who will run all day at a similar speed level, like robert gordon. Between that and different patterns, and showing dbs different looks (burst-coast burst out of their break. Coasting start then hard in and hard out of their break etc) and dbs different coverages (press vs cushion and zone vs man) its not a constant how fast any one covers a certain portion of yardage. 40 time is also ran with no equipment, and some guys are track athletes who know how maximize 40 time but dont translate as well to game speed. And other guys are "football fast" who dont run as well in a 40 yard dash. Yac has been a big deal for a long time. But yac wr's dont come a long every day. Milt in the early 2ks when he went from a Deep threat to a yac guy. Wrs wouldnt be chastised in most cases for running X yard depth on a play unless they purposely cut short despite coverage. Weve allways seen lots of wrs cut short on 2nd down. Thats when you often still see passes go to where a wr should be and go incomplete while the qb gets up set. Or you see a pass go for 8 yards on 2nd and 10. Often times those are routes designed to flex in 2nd down situations. Some times a wr short cuts their route when they shouldnt. Some times they have to due to coverage, or pass rush. Some times a QB just under throws or is under pressure or doesnt have great arm strength and the wr has to come back to the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 On 07/08/2016 at 2:22 AM, O2L said: Lots of teams giving up 300+ yards passing to Edmonton these days, how's that working out for the Eskimos with their three-game losing streak (and even their two wins were only by three and four points again Sask and us)? I'm in the "stats are for losers" camp. For the first five games all I heard were people defending Willy by using his stats but anyone watching him play would have seen how ineffective he was. So far this season, Nichols has two wins, zero losses, four TDs, zero INTs. I'll take those stats over any number of yards. I'm curious to know where you heard this... the general consensus around here was those were meaningless, garbage time stats... Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2L Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 2 hours ago, bearpants said: I'm curious to know where you heard this... the general consensus around here was those were meaningless, garbage time stats... CJOB in particular. Whenever a caller would mention Willy's poor play, Bob Irving and Doug Brown would basically tell the caller they were out to lunch and list off Willy's stats. I heard this on the postgame for weeks on end. Bob constantly saying things like, "it seems no matter what Willy does people won't be happy with him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 2 hours ago, O2L said: CJOB in particular. Whenever a caller would mention Willy's poor play, Bob Irving and Doug Brown would basically tell the caller they were out to lunch and list off Willy's stats. I heard this on the postgame for weeks on end. Bob constantly saying things like, "it seems no matter what Willy does people won't be happy with him." I see, makes sense... While there are probably a few good ones from time to time... my experience is that the CJOB call-in folks are generally uninformed... Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2L Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 7 hours ago, bearpants said: I see, makes sense... While there are probably a few good ones from time to time... my experience is that the CJOB call-in folks are generally uninformed... Agreed, but in this case the callers were complaining about Willy's play and Irving and Brown were citing his stats as proof that he was playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 11 hours ago, O2L said: Agreed, but in this case the callers were complaining about Willy's play and Irving and Brown were citing his stats as proof that he was playing well. oh sorry, I didn't read your post very well... I thought you were saying the callers were defending Willy with his stats... that's odd that Doug and Knuckles would do that... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, bearpants said: oh sorry, I didn't read your post very well... I thought you were saying the callers were defending Willy with his stats... that's odd that Doug and Knuckles would do that... thanks Not that unusual. CJOB is the house organ of the Bombers and their only claim to relevance over 1290 radio. If they get into bad-mouthing the Bombers, suddenly they would find their phone calls not being returned and players becoming loath to talk to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bomber Fan Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 Actually last year I thought Doug Brown was very vocal in voicing what I thought were solid comments regarding the coaching and playing of the Bombers. I have noticed this year that he isn't quite as vocal, at least in a constructive critical manner. Not saying that he has been reined in but simply he has mellowed somewhat. Just wondering why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 Doug Brown has very specific things he likes from a football team. If he doesn't see them he tells people about it, if he sees them then he's happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bomber Fan Posted August 10, 2016 Report Share Posted August 10, 2016 I guess we could all say we have things we like from a football team.......like......winning. Today we are happy, tomorrow we will see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now