Was fact we did a lot on offence and had the 2 big drives without arguably our best receiver and Nichols comfort/go-to guy in Dressler.

Thorpe seemed to really step up in crunch and take some of the looks Dressler would have been getting in those drives...a good sign any way you look at it

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

Was fact we did a lot on offence and had the 2 big drives without arguably our best receiver and Nichols comfort/go-to guy in Dressler.

Thorpe seemed to really step up in crunch and take some of the looks Dressler would have been getting in those drives...a good sign any way you look at it

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

Lost in it all...part 2

Medlock not have good game and we still won.

Pretty sure Dressler didn't take a single snap on offense in the 2nd half.  He was still out there holding for Medlock, but when the O was on the field, he was on the sidelines, standing next to Davis.

Edited July 28, 20178 yr by BomberBall

12 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

Edited July 28, 20178 yr by yogi

5 minutes ago, BomberBall said:

Pretty sure Dressler didn't take a single snap on offense in the 2nd half.  He was still out there holding for Medlock, but when the O was on the field, he was on the sidelines, standing next to Davis.

as has been mentioned many times, he was injured in the 1st half....

T.J Thorpe intrigues me.   Would like to see us get him into some space, more often.....bowling ball type.

13 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

I thought it was because they just plugged him into Dresslers spot. Meaning, that all the plays and touches normally designed for Dress just went to Lankford instead.

Definitely possible!

Thorpe sure looks like he might be the answer to our import WR question, sure handed and just mows guys over upfield. Very north-south, get the ball and get yards player.

Also, I salivate when I see Darvin Adams line up in 1-on-1 man coverage. That 2nd and short you could see coming from a mile away, and Adams made a nice grab to stretch the field for us.

13 minutes ago, yogi said:

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

If you're going to talk stats, it's not valid to cherry pick and omit certain plays... if you are, you're just trying to fit it into a predetermined narrative.

Lost in it all part III:

Although the D didn't have a particularly spectacular night, they did stuff the Als on 1st and goal from our 1 after the crazy fumble recovery by Cunningham at the end of the 3rd. The extra 4 points from a TD would've meant the Bombers (hypothetically) would've needed 16 points (still a 2-score game), instead of 12, and that would've only tied it.

Probably going to be the kiss of death, but I thought Lankford handled himself very nicely.  Drew a long PI call as well.  Thorpe and Lankford, both have good size.  Thorpe plays a really strong, run you over type game (replacement for Sheppard, but better imo), while Lankford has the speed to pull away from guys, and I think he's figured out how to really use it now.

Lost in it all IV:

The great block Adams threw to allow "The Fever" to get to the end zone.  Just cut down Boulay and allowed 13 to get up field.  Really great thing to see from your WRs.

54 minutes ago, yogi said:

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

And... if you ignore his td receptions, Stegall didn't contribute much scoring.

loved how the o-line wrasslin' slammed the DE who was trying to jump and deflect the pass.. that was gold!

7 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

loved how the o-line wrasslin' slammed the DE who was trying to jump and deflect the pass.. that was gold!

This o-line is playing with a mean streak, hard not to love it when they play for you. Would HATE playing against them.

yup. i'm loving the attitude and nasty streak.. harkens back to the days of Walby and Gorrell.

Lost in it all VI.....

 

I was at the game and wasn't really able to tell due to the lack of the replays on the screens. But the ball that was stripped and then knocked back into play by montreal and Cunningham picking it up.....What is the ruling on that? Did the ball actually go out of bounds? It looked like it did but if it goes out of bounds in the air and is knocked back in is it still live? That was an unbelievable play by mtl either way!

 

1 minute ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Lost in it all VI.....

 

I was at the game and wasn't really able to tell due to the lack of the replays on the screens. But the ball that was stripped and then knocked back into play by montreal and Cunningham picking it up.....What is the ruling on that? Did the ball actually go out of bounds? It looked like it did but if it goes out of bounds in the air and is knocked back in is it still live? That was an unbelievable play by mtl either way!

 

The ref was staring at the line so he would have had the best view of if it touched the stripe or not. Nice athletic play for sure, but also risky in that it would have been MTL possession if he lets it go out of bounds there but by tossing it back in he leaves open the chance that we recover.

1 hour ago, yogi said:

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

this is meaningless

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

as has been mentioned many times, he was injured in the 1st half....

Why the attitude?  I assumed he was injured, as I was keeping an eye on him from my seats, but it wasn't mentioned in this thread.  I was simply relaying what I saw.

5 minutes ago, Nash00 said:

The ref was staring at the line so he would have had the best view of if it touched the stripe or not. Nice athletic play for sure, but also risky in that it would have been MTL possession if he lets it go out of bounds there but by tossing it back in he leaves open the chance that we recover.

Watched the game re-cap and paused it to see that the ball did land in bounds by about half a foot... didn't like the call at the time, but they did get that one right.

Im lost

9 minutes ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Lost in it all VI.....

 

I was at the game and wasn't really able to tell due to the lack of the replays on the screens. But the ball that was stripped and then knocked back into play by montreal and Cunningham picking it up.....What is the ruling on that? Did the ball actually go out of bounds? It looked like it did but if it goes out of bounds in the air and is knocked back in is it still live? That was an unbelievable play by mtl either way!

 

If the receivers feet had touched the ground out of bounds he would not be eligible to play the ball.  He didn't.  And while it was really close, the ball didn't touch the ground out of bounds either.  Live ball.

Stupid decision that worked out for them.  Just like Thomas handing the ball off to Knox worked out for us last week.