This trade has raises some questions for me. Mainly, can or will glenn take the starting job? 

Glenn has the Raw tools to excel in this kind of system. Quick release, strong ability to find his best receivers especially in the clutch, ability to win the game and produce in volume. 

Nichols is the small ball, game manager and has shown strong ability of late to drive the field late in games. He knows the system and fits very well, hes shown strong intangibles through out his time, that winning mentality and attitude. 

On the down side, glenn is a gambler. He may lead the way to several blow outs, but he will also throw away games. Mean while with nichols we play close games that should be blow outs. 

 All in all its a great situation to be in, so long as it doesnt become a distraction to the team. Its certainly better then willy/nichols. Some one to push nichols for once could be a good thing too. Hes stepped in for injured and failing qbs. But we havent seen him be the no1 and have a qb behind him pushing him. I hope that when the win streak ends and equalizes a bit nichols wont be un fairly thrown under the bus if he continues to execute at the same level. At the same time I want to see the offense finally produce at a high level. 

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

He has "ring" anyway, his 1998 ring doesn't really count.

He didnt start that year thats true. But he is still a part of multiple championship teams, and probably the best modern stable of cfl qbs. Thats one more then khari, milt or blink got. 

24 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

cant say that, far worse qbs like marcus crandell won grey cups. Hank is far worse in the clutch and has rings. 

Glenn's performance in the 2012 Grey Cup, was one of the, if not the worst in the last 16 years or so.

45 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Glenn's performance in the 2012 Grey Cup, was one of the, if not the worst in the last 16 years or so.

When Glenn goes into chuck and duck mode he's completely useless.  I have seen that movie far too many times.

3 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Maybe because our offense is under performing and glenn has thrown for 5 tds in one game this year against one of the better teams. Where as nichols has never thrown more then 3, as a pro. Take your blinders off. 

6-0

 

nichols 7 TDs 1 int 3 rushing TDs

Glenn 13 TDs 11 int

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by LimJahey

 

 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Mark F

10 hours ago, LimJahey said:

6-0

 

nichols 7 TDs 1 int 3 rushing TDs

Glenn 13 TDs 11 int

And take away that 5TD game and Glenn's numbers get even worse. Not sure what it'll take to convince folks that Nichols is the guy at this point. He led our team to twice as many TDs as Durant did on Sat and most folks seem to feel that Durant is the better QB. Collaros threw some pretty ill advised passes yesterday (should've been several more picks), Reilly making mistakes as well, even Mitchell did. Now don't get me wrong, those are all QBs I'd love to have here (maybe minus Durant), but while Nichols might not be single handedly winning us games, he isn't losing them either. I believe if Willy or Glenn we're our QB the last two weeks we would've lost both, because either would've turned over the ball. I like Nichols- workmanlike, unassuming, and gets the most important stat of all: wins. 

One big advantage to having Glenn here is that his playing style is not that much different from Nichols, so fitting into LaPolice's offence shouldn't take all that long. We have a very good O-line to give Glenn protection and time. Either way, Glenn is probably happy to be here and Willy wasn't.

Some of those lack of INT numbers for Nichols are luck whether flat out dropped by dbs or taken away on cheap PI calls. He's done well for sure but people trot out 6-0 and the TD:INT ratio entirely too quickly without providing context. 

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

Some of those lack of INT numbers for Nichols are luck whether flat out dropped by dbs or taken away on cheap PI calls. He's done well for sure but people trot out 6-0 and the TD:INT ratio entirely too quickly without providing context. 

close only counts in horseshoes

I just want to know, how many qbs around the CFL would be losing games when the team over that stretch has taken away that many balls from the other team? QB gets too much blame and too much credit around these parts. 

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Some of those lack of INT numbers for Nichols are luck whether flat out dropped by dbs or taken away on cheap PI calls. He's done well for sure but people trot out 6-0 and the TD:INT ratio entirely too quickly without providing context. 

Nichols is under our microscope so we see his near-misses more than any other QB's. There are near-misses by every QB.

1 minute ago, StevetheClub said:

Nichols is under our microscope so we see his near-misses more than any other QB's. There are near-misses by every QB.

True but sometimes a streak is just a streak. 

Let's not pretend that ekeing out wins against the Riders is really acceptable. I mean that defense has been making teams look great all year and the Bombers had to fight tooth and nail to put drives together on them. That's a concern. Not like they beat a good team in tight games, it's the 1-10 Riders they barely hung on against. 

7 minutes ago, LimJahey said:

close only counts in horseshoes

In terms of results, you're definitely correct.

But you can bet that our coaching staff doesn't just grade performance on results. A bad throw is a bad throw whether the result of it was bad or not.

1 minute ago, Mike said:

In terms of results, you're definitely correct.

But you can bet that our coaching staff doesn't just grade performance on results. A bad throw is a bad throw whether the result of it was bad or not.

agreed but his "bad throws" have been few and far between, sure he has been getting favorable results on most of them but you have to think his decision making is WAY above average. The decision to tuck it and run last game was one that Willy probably would not have made.

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

True but sometimes a streak is just a streak. 

Let's not pretend that ekeing out wins against the Riders is really acceptable. I mean that defense has been making teams look great all year and the Bombers had to fight tooth and nail to put drives together on them. That's a concern. Not like they beat a good team in tight games, it's the 1-10 Riders they barely hung on against. 

That being said, those two games were the hardest I've seen the Riders play all year.  Now watch them just fall apart against the Eskimos and make Reilly look like a star. 

12 minutes ago, LimJahey said:

close only counts in horseshoes

And nuclear warfare.

What has impressed me is when we needed a drive Nichols has led the team down the field. 

Just now, LimJahey said:

agreed but his "bad throws" have been few and far between, sure he has been getting favorable results on most of them but you have to think his decision making is WAY above average. The decision to tuck it and run last game was one that Willy probably would not have made.

His bad throws have been few and far between. Unfortunately, so have his good throws recently. His decision making isn't something I can knock, but his execution lately has been poor.

6 touchdown tosses in 6 games with the opportunities he has been afforded isn't going to be a winning result for us if it continues moving forward.

Just now, Jpan85 said:

What has impressed me is when we needed a drive Nichols has led the team down the field. 

I do appreciate and agree with this, but it's not unfair to suggest that if he'd show up earlier in games, he wouldn't need these last minute drives.

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

True but sometimes a streak is just a streak. 

Let's not pretend that ekeing out wins against the Riders is really acceptable. I mean that defense has been making teams look great all year and the Bombers had to fight tooth and nail to put drives together on them. That's a concern. Not like they beat a good team in tight games, it's the 1-10 Riders they barely hung on against. 

And I guess I disagree that this is just a streak. I don't think we've been winning in spite of Nichols and the offense, I think all three phases have been complementing each other quite well.

Just now, StevetheClub said:

And I guess I disagree that this is just a streak. I don't think we've been winning in spite of Nichols and the offense, I think all three phases have been complementing each other quite well.

Only because the turnovers have been avoided. Against teams that aren't the Riders it'll take more than just a couple drives a game to win because no other team gives games away like the Riders do. Nichols should be scoring more points with the way the defense was taking balls away. 

I would rather have poor O and great D than the other way around but when your O is that impotent you are playing with fire and sooner or later the D won't be able to bail them out. Gotta score some points sometimes. 

I don't think it's very easy to win back to back games against anyone in this league. Look at Hamilton and Toronto... they split their back to back.  Edmonton after being killed last week lost in OT to Calgary this week.  

The LDC is the riders Grey Cup... Durant before that game said that is the 1 game they don't lose at home. They did and they lost the banjo bowl also but honestly.... when you play back to back games.... isn't it more likely you split those games? Give Sask credit.... their D was very good the other day... so was the bombers... difference that game was our O was just a wee bit better. And our coach isn't as stupid as Jones is 

 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Goalie

Was their D really good though? Or was the Bombers O just bad? Cause the Riders D has been putrid all season. It's OK to admit that we stole a couple on LD and BB and we need to be better to beat teams that aren't **** tier.

Just now, 17to85 said:

Only because the turnovers have been avoided. Against teams that aren't the Riders it'll take more than just a couple drives a game to win because no other team gives games away like the Riders do. Nichols should be scoring more points with the way the defense was taking balls away. 

I would rather have poor O and great D than the other way around but when your O is that impotent you are playing with fire and sooner or later the D won't be able to bail them out. Gotta score some points sometimes. 

That's very true, Nichols and the O have done an excellent job of avoiding turnovers. Why does that have to be considered a streak, or at least any more than the "streak" the D has been on, with all the turnovers created?

I'm not arguing that we have a great offense, but we definitely have a good enough one that I don't think is playing above it's ability.

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

His bad throws have been few and far between. Unfortunately, so have his good throws recently. His decision making isn't something I can knock, but his execution lately has been poor.

6 touchdown tosses in 6 games with the opportunities he has been afforded isn't going to be a winning result for us if it continues moving forward.

6 in 6 games isn't anything to write home about but just as you said there have been drops by defenders for sure picks, there were 2 deliberate drops in the end zone by bomber receivers in regina.