If someone has touched on this already I apologize but I'm wondering if this is for real. When MOS and Willy first got here we went 5-1 and we were annointing them as the second coming, myself included. Then we went into a horrible stretch that we all suffered through. Now suddenly, after almost 3 years, we have won 3 in a row and we're all getting giddy again, myself included. I'm trying to temper that with the reality of the last 3 years so I ask you, is it real? Have we really turned the corner, or is this just another blip on the radar, a cruel hoax to suck us in for another 3 years of suffering? Are there really contract extensions sitting in Wade's desk? I can't help but wonder if it's real.

Realistically if a team is a playoff contender, they are a Grey Cup contender.  It's the CFL, it only takes one or two wins to make it to the big game once you get in.    

It's as real as a .500 team can be.

We've beaten 1 above .500 team and they didn't have their top 3 receivers, started a rookie center and a QB in his 2nd start who threw 5 Ints. 

We got 6 turnovers in 3 out of our 4 wins. We lead the league by a wide margin in takeaways. Not sure if we can keep this up for a whole season. Kind of reminds me of the first half of the season in the swaggerville days.

We beat backup QB's in 3 out of 4 wins. All of our 4 losses came against starting QB's.

We play 3 below .500 teams in a row with their starting QB's and we should be favoured in each one of them. After that it's going to get tough and we'll really be able to gauge how good we are against the top half of the league (And Edm).

 

15 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

It's as real as a .500 team can be.

We've beaten 1 above .500 team and they didn't have their top 3 receivers, started a rookie center and a QB in his 2nd start who threw 5 Ints. 

We got 6 turnovers in 3 out of our 4 wins. We lead the league by a wide margin in takeaways. Not sure if we can keep this up for a whole season. Kind of reminds me of the first half of the season in the swaggerville days.

We beat backup QB's in 3 out of 4 wins. All of our 4 losses came against starting QB's.

We play 3 below .500 teams in a row with their starting QB's and we should be favoured in each one of them. After that it's going to get tough and we'll really be able to gauge how good we are against the top half of the league (And Edm).

 

Should also be noted that they won 3 of those games with a back up QB. 4 rookies in the secondary, and a couple rookie receivers. I don't understand the logic in stating all the issues with the teams they played while at the same time completely ignoring the faults on the bombers roster.

I get that the teams they beat weren’t playing with all the players they wanted to be. But the bombers weren’t either. And at the end of the day, none of that matters. They won.

17 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't understand the logic in stating all the issues with the teams they played while at the same time completely ignoring the faults on the bombers roster.

 

It's just his thing...

We have faced our own challenges.

We beat TO with 2 rook OL, 4 rooks in secondary, and 3 at receiver.......in a couple of weeks, this roster should be stronger...

The backup QB's we have beat the last 2 weeks.....are 4-1 against non-Bomber teams

God, am I turning into a sunshine boy, here?

 

56 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Should also be noted that they won 3 of those games with a back up QB. 4 rookies in the secondary, and a couple rookie receivers. I don't understand the logic in stating all the issues with the teams they played while at the same time completely ignoring the faults on the bombers roster.

I get that the teams they beat weren’t playing with all the players they wanted to be. But the bombers weren’t either. And at the end of the day, none of that matters. They won.

Logic is irrelevant to some. 

Lots of folks around here have posted all good things about the Bombers. No one questions them. BTW: It's just a bunch of facts, not logic.

I'm well aware of our issues and there's no need for me to repeat them as others have already covered them. 

The question was 'Is it real'. How does only discussing the yes side of the question make any sense? This isn't the Riders Fan forum.

Can't even be bothered anymore...

 

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

Should also be noted that they won 3 of those games with a back up QB. 4 rookies in the secondary, and a couple rookie receivers.

Different situations. We chose Nichols over Willy. Toronto didn't choose Kilgore over Ray and Hamilton didn't choose Masoli over Calaros. No one in their right mind would. 

8 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 

Different situations. We chose Nichols over Willy. Toronto didn't choose Kilgore over Ray and Hamilton didn't choose Masoli over Calaros. No one in their right mind would. 

Chose to or had to doesn't change the fact that they did. 

We won 3 consecutive games with our backup QB. Just saying.

35 minutes ago, holoman said:

Chose to or had to doesn't change the fact that they did. 

Nor does it change the fact that choosing to go to another better QB is way different than being forced into play a vastly inferior QB. Just sayin.

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Nor does it change the fact that choosing to go to another better QB is way different than being forced into play a vastly inferior QB. Just sayin.

Killing a guy in self defence or in cold blooded murder doesn't change the fact you killed a guy.  Just saying

We finally have a QB behind center who is running the offence the way it is supposed to be run.  Just saying.

Are we for real?

I think we've been pretty lucky, in three of our wins, our opponents completely self-destructed.  Even in the Edmonton game, our final dagger was an interception on a ball that Reilly just shouldn't have thrown. The good news is that our team is good enough to create and capitalize on these opportunities, but I'm really curious to see if we now beat the teams that, on paper, we should beat -- the upcoming three games against the weak sisters of the league feel like trap games, especially Labour Day, when we historically underperform. You look at a team like Calgary, it's very rare they get upset by a bad team.

I've gotta say that our depth in the secondary is totally unbelievable and Loffler's emergence as a surprise national starter feels absolutely huge to the Bombers' turnaround: his play upgrades both the secondary and the OL.

Edited August 17, 20169 yr by johnzo

Well TB, I didn't see Saskatchewan, not the CFL for that matter, offer to give us the Grey Cup back in '07 because we had to play our no experience backup QB after Glenn got his arm broken. 

I think we're a team potentially turning the corner. Sort of feels like 2000.

Our offence and defence both need to keep taking steps forward. One huge improvement is our Oline play. At halftime in the Calgary game we were averaging .5 ypc.... Calgary was averaging 8..... Drew Willy wasn't playing particularly good that game but IMO  that was the reason we lost that game.

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

 BTW: It's just a bunch of facts, not logic.

Taken out of context and submitted in a vacuum. 

Yes, we beat two teams with back up QBs- that is all you offer.

You fail to mention our decimated secondary, 2 rooks on Oline, decimated receiving corps (where we had to bring in a double cut vet). 

 

 

Oh yeah,  AND our freaking BACK UP QB.

 

 

Anyways- you are not wrong, just incomplete.

 

 

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Taken out of context and submitted in a vacuum. 

Yes, we beat two teams with back up QBs- that is all you offer.

You fail to mention our decimated secondary, 2 rooks on Oline, decimated receiving corps (where we had to bring in a double cut vet). 

 

 

Oh yeah,  AND our freaking BACK UP QB.

 

 

Anyways- you are not wrong, just incomplete.

 

 

... and your argument would be valid if we had guys to replace them with...

Willy will not replace Nichols so therefore- not a backup QB

Macho Harris will not replace Loffler

Fogg is staying

Denmark is replacing whoever was in his position previously.

Rooks on the Oline will not be replaced until they prove otherwise.

 

As Oshea says durability is an ability.

21 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Well TB, I didn't see Saskatchewan, not the CFL for that matter, offer to give us the Grey Cup back in '07 because we had to play our no experience backup QB after Glenn got his arm broken. 

What the heck do you think that has to do with the conversation? I never suggested that we give back our wins. 

Arguing that we are playing our backup QB when anyone whose been watching the Bombers knows that Nichols is our starting QB is just playing silly buggers. Willy was our starting QB due and he played himself out of it. Nichols took the job by the end of his first game and has been our starter ever since.

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Taken out of context and submitted in a vacuum. 

Yes, we beat two teams with back up QBs- that is all you offer.

You fail to mention our decimated secondary, 2 rooks on Oline, decimated receiving corps (where we had to bring in a double cut vet). 

Oh yeah,  AND our freaking BACK UP QB.

Anyways- you are not wrong, just incomplete.

 

 

Context: The title of the thread 'Is it real?'

Vacuum: I posted several facts about our wins, not nothing.

Logic: I left folks to make up their own minds what the facts meant.

Failed to mention: Yup, no need to repeat what others are repeating.

Freaking backup QB: Nope he's our freaking starting QB, where you been for the last month?

 

5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

What the heck do you think that has to do with the conversation? I never suggested that we give back our wins. 

You opened the door to using back up QBs, as if we should apologize, or feel the 'reality' of the situation. But I tell you that is the reality of the situation, at any time. Teams have to use backups..all the time. We have, for years. Your need to keep pointing out the "but, but but" in all things good for the Bombers is your way of simply negatizing any Bomber run for ten yards. And why? To simply point out the facts? 

As Winnie would say...oh bother.

but Nichols isnt the backup so voids your whole argument.....

On 14/08/2016 at 9:54 PM, Noeller said:

There's a lotta guys... I believe Foketi is one.... They started working on 2 years ago... 

I guess that's why we have to give the GM and scouting staff 3 years to show their stuff. 

4 minutes ago, J5V said:

I guess that's why we have to give the GM and scouting staff 3 years to show their stuff. 

Getting rid of a GM after anything less than 3 years would be insane, barring some sort of massive failure ala Kelly or Reinebold.