Just to not start an overreaction, I know this is part of the CFL.  We had a big road win last week and unfortunately after so many games when things go right, you often have one that goes wrong, and such was tonight.

 

But having said that, RichiHall's chickens have come home to roost again.  This D has to be able to step up and get turnovers at some point, and his refusal to call blitzes is preventing them from doing that.  And Ryan Lankford ... I don't have any issues with him returning kicks, but his play as a wideout has been awful.  Killing our offense when he's in there.  Dom Davis sure didn't tear it up but our guys were making his numbers worse with the drops.

 

I think we can still get home field for the WSF, but it doesn't look like we're ready to knock off Calgary yet.

Edited November 13, 20178 yr by USABomberfan

Nicholls was at least a threat to be successful downfield - putting Davis in would have allowed BC to key on Harris even more. 

21 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Nicholls was at least a threat to be successful downfield - putting Davis in would have allowed BC to key on Harris even more. 

Maybe, but as I mentioned before don't forget Davis has a pretty strong arm.  Maybe not as quick a release, but certainly does have arm strength.

On 10/14/2017 at 8:05 PM, 17to85 said:

they were down by 3 TDs.  Prevent defense and they wasted all sorts of time trying to come back and never got the required big plays or onside kicks. 

The thing I find funny in all this... if the roles were reversed and the Bombers scored 2 garbage time TDs to make the game close... the exact same people would say: who cares, our offense was still **** and they got lucky against a garbage time, prevent defense...

 

The Bombers won.

Why did they win?  How did they win?

90 - 95% of the credit goes to defence and special teams.  They do not deserve less credit than that.  They might deserve more.

 

This place could stand to be a little less internetty at times...

2 hours ago, mbrg said:

The Bombers won.

Why did they win?  How did they win?

90 - 95% of the credit goes to defence and special teams.  They do not deserve less credit than that.  They might deserve more.

 

This place could stand to be a little less internetty at times...

True, but Jonathon Jennings has been making quite a few opposing defenses look good as of late, so that may be part of it.  It may sound like being a perfectionist, but I still think defenses should finish games and not decide to get all sloppy at the end there.  It's not about the score or the lead, it's about the mentality.  It may not get us in trouble with a big lead, but if we're defending a one possession lead or so in crunch time, I wouldn't trust Richie Hall to be aggressive.

32 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

True, but Jonathon Jennings has been making quite a few opposing defenses look good as of late, so that may be part of it.  It may sound like being a perfectionist, but I still think defenses should finish games and not decide to get all sloppy at the end there.  It's not about the score or the lead, it's about the mentality.  It may not get us in trouble with a big lead, but if we're defending a one possession lead or so in crunch time, I wouldn't trust Richie Hall to be aggressive.

losing 2 starters in our secondary couldn`t have had anything to do with it either tho eh.. plus our starting DE..

nah. couldn`t have been it.

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

losing 2 starters in our secondary couldn`t have had anything to do with it either tho eh.. plus our starting DE..

nah. couldn`t have been it.

He's gone into prevent mode when Westerman and Leggett were in the lineup and its bit us in the butt then too.

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

losing 2 starters in our secondary couldn`t have had anything to do with it either tho eh.. plus our starting DE..

nah. couldn`t have been it.

I would give the above a lot more weight if it wasn't for the fact we have seen Hall's prevent D get shredded time in and time out.

On 15/10/2017 at 10:29 AM, J5V said:

How many seconds does it take to score a TD? 

 

irrelevant because the Bombers hadn't given up any over the top stuff all game and were playing specifically to take that away. How long does it take to score a touchdown when you need to make 4 or 5 plays to get into the endzone? More than 20....

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

irrelevant because the Bombers hadn't given up any over the top stuff all game and were playing specifically to take that away. How long does it take to score a touchdown when you need to make 4 or 5 plays to get into the endzone? More than 20....

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

Edited October 16, 20178 yr by J5V

2 hours ago, J5V said:

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

Yup adds more fuel to the need to fire him when the season and Grey Cup is up.

3 hours ago, J5V said:

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

1st BC Touchdown:

2nd BC Touchdown:

I almost missed this ... thanks for the play-by-play breakdown, it's much better than the hilite package and shows all the plays.

17to85 is right in that it takes several plays and a bit longer to get into the end zone. However, it still shows a very soft prevent D that offers little to no resistance to BC scoring 2 quick TDs in the last few minutes. I still maintain that had BC got lucky with that final kick, 22 seconds was plenty of time to find the end zone yet again, and victory. We got lucky this time but this Prevent D has been burned in the past and is going to get burned again. I hate, hate, hate this Prevent D. Way too soft.

I don’t know if there are any teams, CFL or NFL, who don’t have a prevent defence in place for these situations. It’s all about keeping the ball ahead of you, killing the clock, making the tackles, and execution. 

It helps exponentially to have your offence get first downs...

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎12 at 9:18 PM, J5V said:

I guess it's just that we see guys like Elimimian and Singleton and wonder what kind of impact a player like that might have on our team. 

Just as other teams look at our Heath, Randle, or Leggett and wonder the same thing.  I get that Hurl is not an all star but the decision to play him allows us to afford and play  other all stars.

1 hour ago, gcn11 said:

Just as other teams look at our Heath, Randle, or Leggett and wonder the same thing.  I get that Hurl is not an all star but the decision to play him allows us to afford and play  other all stars.

True but if we're going to be as successful as a team like Calgary, and I assume every Bomber fan wants that, we need the best players possible at all positions. I think we can do better.

On 10/17/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mr Dee said:

I don’t know if there are any teams, CFL or NFL, who don’t have a prevent defence in place for these situations. It’s all about keeping the ball ahead of you, killing the clock, making the tackles, and execution. 

It helps exponentially to have your offence get first downs...

Problem is Hall's defense has players backed off too far receivers have all that space to rip off 20 yards easily.

8 minutes ago, J5V said:

True but if we're going to be as successful as a team like Calgary, and I assume every Bomber fan wants that, we need the best players possible at all positions. I think we can do better.

Hopefully some of the OL they drafted turn out to be the real deal. Finding another good Canadian guard (hello Sukh Chungh) would go a long way towards putting the team in that position. But for now, it is what it is. As I always say, at least they are no longer sacrificing the OL.

No team, not even Calgary, has the best players at all positions....it just doesn't work that way.

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

No team, not even Calgary, has the best players at all positions....it just doesn't work that way.

Nobody said that and while Calgary may not have the best players at all positions they may have better players at all positions than any other team in the league. We need to change that.

43 minutes ago, J5V said:

Nobody said that and while Calgary may not have the best players at all positions they may have better players at all positions than any other team in the league. We need to change that.

I completely disagree with that statement as well. In fact I know we have better players in some positions than them. 

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I completely disagree with that statement as well. In fact I know we have better players in some positions than them. 

Ya not sure of the reasoning behind laughter but I agree, we have 2 DBs who i'd take over theirs.. I'd take loffler as well.  our o-line is on par with or better then..

 

Harris and Messem is almost a wash but I'd take Harris as he is better overall IMO at catching and running. 

7 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

Ya not sure of the reasoning behind laughter but I agree, we have 2 DBs who i'd take over theirs.. I'd take loffler as well.  our o-line is on par with or better then..

Harris and Messem is almost a wash but I'd take Harris as he is better overall IMO at catching and running. 

Not laughing at anyone just laughing that after 2 (failed) attempts no one understands what I'm saying. I'm sure it's just me. 

Just now, J5V said:

Not laughing at anyone just laughing that after 2 (failed) attempts no one understands what I'm saying. I'm sure it's just me. 

well the way you worded it made it sound like you believe Calgary, player for player, has the best in each spot and that doesn't really hold any water. Now if you meant the sum of all their parts together means they have a level field of skill or some such.. then that I would agree with.. they don't have any holes or glaring weak spots on their roster.. 

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

No team, not even Calgary, has the best players at all positions....it just doesn't work that way.

No that's not true, The Bombers are the only team with weaknesses in their lineup, every other team is loaded 3 deep at all positions with allstar calibre players. ******* Walters can't even build a team. SMH