Since Michael O'Shea has arrived here we have relentlessly heard preached the crucial elements of character, heart and team loyalty. Tonight that's going to be put to the test -  - to see how character stacks up against talent.

The Bombers have a lot on the line, Calgary doesn't. One of the 2 teams will end on a three-game losing streak.

The snow by the way is just another wildcard, not an advantage card.

Let's see who wants it more  (which is another way of saying how much does heart and character really count for anyway). 

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Without a doubt, it was the Stamps giveaways, or our takeaways and special teams that beat the Stamps.  Folks want to focus on how great our defence was and ignore how bad the Stamps offense was.  BLM out was huge as it meant we could blitz at will and their backup QB's weren't going to pick it up. Add in the fact that their backup QB's were taking way to long to make their decisions and were telegraphing their throws and suddenly our defence looks great. Anyone think that BLM would have thrown the first pick 6 that set the tone for the game? 

Lefevour had a great completion percentage because he only threw the ball 10 yards and because our RB's/Receivers dug some low balls out of the dirt or snow. The fact that we were 10 points up in the 1st quarter meant that he didn't have to do any more than that, but lets not pretend that was a good offensive performance.

Folks want the story to be how great we played to beat the stamps and ignore that teams with nothing to play for often mail it in, especially after they get down by more than a TD. Toronto showed everyone what it looks like when a good team plays a team that mails it in when they destroyed BC 40-13 and it could have been worse if they had better red zone production.

We beat a disinterested team, in a snowstorm, against their backup QB's and others, when the offense didn't score a single TD and mistakes cost the Stamps at least 10 if not 17 points. 

So then how come the Stamps defense didn't turn in a similar performance against the Winnipeg backup qb?  I mean christ one of the very first plays of the game Nevis blew up the Stamps OL and put Messam on his ass. Meanwhile Harris fought hard for every inch and turned short gains into good gains all night. 

This game came down to one simple thing, the Bombers won the battle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Yeah Lefevour wasn't any hot hell, but the Bombers lines outplayed the Stamps lines and as a result there were less mistakes by the Bombers. BLM ain't going to change that much, the Stamps O has been pretty suckass the last month or so. 

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Oh look! There it is again. I post, you post. Starting to get creepy bud. 

Get  a room, guys. The sexual tension is obvious.

5 minutes ago, tracker said:

Get  a room, guys. The sexual tension is obvious.

not that there would be anything wrong with that...

1 minute ago, tracker said:

Get  a room, guys. The sexual tension is obvious.

Absolutely comical how multiple posters here have quoted him and called him out on his nonsense, not just in this thread but several others in the past. His pitiful response: fixate on just one and launch a personal attack. And I'm the creepy one.

I'll let the thread and reactions speak for themselves.

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Absolutely comical how multiple posters here have quoted him and called him out on his nonsense, not just in this thread but several others in the past. His pitiful response: fixate on just one and launch a personal attack. And I'm the creepy one.

I'll let the thread and reactions speak for themselves.

The Strategy:

Try and find a thread with lots of similar points of view,

Bait them with a contrary post,

Use their reaction to claim that you are being misunderstood,

Reject any posts that point out the contrarian nature on display ,

Grab the "everyone is mean to me" card and wave it frantically.

I call it the TBURG approach.

 

In the fruitcake of life, it's the nuts that give it character.

It's actually read a bunch of positrons with blue goggles on, who can only see the good things that the Bombers do. Give them other side of the story. Wait for a bunch of whining and whinging about stuff I didn't say from the same  folks who can only see the good things. 

5 hours ago, 17to85 said:

So then how come the Stamps defense didn't turn in a similar performance against the Winnipeg backup qb?  I mean christ one of the very first plays of the game Nevis blew up the Stamps OL and put Messam on his ass. Meanwhile Harris fought hard for every inch and turned short gains into good gains all night. 

This game came down to one simple thing, the Bombers won the battle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Yeah Lefevour wasn't any hot hell, but the Bombers lines outplayed the Stamps lines and as a result there were less mistakes by the Bombers. BLM ain't going to change that much, the Stamps O has been pretty suckass the last month or so. 

They did. Net yards for both teams were under 200. Our offence produced 6 points. They produced 3 points and they went on 3rd down well within easy FG range and  I'm not even including their TD that was called back.  They took Singleton out by the end of the first quarter. Not surprisingly, I think that had something to do with Harris getting his 68 rushing yards. Messam was obviously having footing problems, which had at least something to do with his 30 yard rushing day.

We won the battle in the trenches (Much, not all, of it due to bad QB play), but the game came down to one simple thing... turnovers. 17 points off of 7 turnovers.

Quote

17 points off of 7 turnovers.

Caused by a good game plan and a ferocious effort...Why is that so hard to admit?

Why couldn't Calgary get any points off turnovers?

55 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Caused by a good game plan and a ferocious effort...Why is that so hard to admit?

Caused by backup QB's telegraphing their throws and taking too long to make their decisions... Why is that so hard for you to admit?

Just now, TBURGESS said:

Why is that so hard for you to admit?

This is so weird. It’s like a playground for you. Can’t think of a rebuttal? Just regurgitate the words you see.

What next? Nyah, nyah?

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

but the game came down to one simple thing... turnovers. 17 points off of 7 turnovers.

Yeah, forced turnovers. The Stamps didn't force that kind of turnover or score off the ones they did get so their performance wasn't the same. 

Most of those turnovers were the kind that are caused purely because the front 7 is disrupting things. Stamps couldn't get a run game going which put it all on the arms of the backup qbs and they got to them over and over with the rush which got into their heads. You can try giving some credit to the Bombers you know, it won't kill you. The defensive line has been pretty good the last while here not like this was a one off game, and TSN spent a long time talking about how great the Stamps OL has been this year. 

12 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Yeah, forced turnovers. The Stamps didn't force that kind of turnover or score off the ones they did get so their performance wasn't the same. 

Most of those turnovers were the kind that are caused purely because the front 7 is disrupting things. Stamps couldn't get a run game going which put it all on the arms of the backup qbs and they got to them over and over with the rush which got into their heads. You can try giving some credit to the Bombers you know, it won't kill you. The defensive line has been pretty good the last while here not like this was a one off game, and TSN spent a long time talking about how great the Stamps OL has been this year. 

The pick 6, which changed the game in our favour, wasn't a forced turnover. It was a bad, telegraphed throw by a newbie Canadian QB in his first start. I'll go as far as to say that if LeFevour's first throw was a 50+ yard pick 6, the game would have turned in their favour. The Wild hit/Oko TD was a great defensive play and a forced turnover. The first turnover on downs was a forced takeaway. The second turnover on downs was a poor decision IMO, should have kicked the FG. Both of Stanzi's picks were horrible QB play. Messam's fumble was forced as was Harris'.

You want to give all the credit to the Bombers. Everyone who watched the game could see that Messam was slip sliding away. The D line had a great game, but they also had a lot of help because the backup QB's weren't making quick decisions. It's the difference of Willy or Nichols behind the same O line. One takes sacks. The other takes first downs. 

12 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

This is so weird. It’s like a playground for you. Can’t think of a rebuttal? Just regurgitate the words you see.

What next? Nyah, nyah?

Cut out the pertinent part of my post then whine that I typed the same thing to you that you did to me?  I wish I could say that I expected better from you but sadly not. What about those backup QB's telegraphing their throws and taking too long to make their decisions? That means nothing to you? 

You can only beat the team that is lined up against you, and beat the Stamps the Bombers did. I mean it's not like it was Nichols vs. Buckley and Stanzi out there. Stamps had the same backup qb advatange the Bombers did, we avoided mistakes better than they did and our lines outplayed theirs by a lot. Our star Canadian RB also outplayed their star Canadian RB. Stop downplaying what happened. It's not the be all and end all for determining where these two teams are at, but it's not like you are trying to make it sound either. 

We get it.

If things that didn't happen happened, then different things would have happened.

Rather than looking at the game played, create a new imaginary game where all the good things the Bombers did and all the bad things Calgary did never happened, and bad things the Bombers never did and all the good things Calgary never did do happen.

And once we cherry pick only bad things imaginary things happening, then the Bombers had an imaginary loss.

Your happy place.

14 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Caused by backup QB's telegraphing their throws and taking too long to make their decisions... Why is that so hard for you to admit?

how does that have any bearing what so ever on the outcome of the game?  We won. they lost. nobody is saying we dominated them,crushed them into the turf and made them look stupid.  All I've seen is that we won a hard fought battle against a very good  opponent..  only one going off on this random "we aint as good as we claim!" tangent is you..  to the surprise of no one.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The pick 6, which changed the game in our favour, wasn't a forced turnover. It was a bad, telegraphed throw by a newbie Canadian QB in his first start. I'll go as far as to say that if LeFevour's first throw was a 50+ yard pick 6, the game would have turned in their favour. The Wild hit/Oko TD was a great defensive play and a forced turnover. The first turnover on downs was a forced takeaway. The second turnover on downs was a poor decision IMO, should have kicked the FG. Both of Stanzi's picks were horrible QB play. Messam's fumble was forced as was Harris'.

You want to give all the credit to the Bombers. Everyone who watched the game could see that Messam was slip sliding away. The D line had a great game, but they also had a lot of help because the backup QB's weren't making quick decisions. It's the difference of Willy or Nichols behind the same O line. One takes sacks. The other takes first downs. 

Cut out the pertinent part of my post then whine that I typed the same thing to you that you did to me?  I wish I could say that I expected better from you but sadly not. What about those backup QB's telegraphing their throws and taking too long to make their decisions? That means nothing to you? 

So the first turnover of the game, which set the tone for the rest of the game, turned it for us?   I don't think so.  our defense playing some very inspired football "turned" the game for us.    Their defense didn't play as well as ours and you cannot deny that Lefevour is not a premium QB in the league so Calgary SHOULD have had a field day against him.. they didn't.   You see what I'm getting at here?  We out played Calgary.  Period. 

 

not really a hard concept to comprehend or grasp..

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Our star Canadian RB also outplayed their star Canadian RB. 

For 1 quarter.

3 hours ago, SPuDS said:

how does that have any bearing what so ever on the outcome of the game?  We won. they lost. nobody is saying we dominated them,crushed them into the turf and made them look stupid.  All I've seen is that we won a hard fought battle against a very good  opponent..  only one going off on this random "we aint as good as we claim!" tangent is you..  to the surprise of no one.

How does their backup QB's playing like crap have any bearing on the outcome of the game?  I can't believe you're actually trying to sell that. Maybe you should go back to one of my earlier posts so you can understand it better.

2 hours ago, SPuDS said:

So the first turnover of the game, which set the tone for the rest of the game, turned it for us?   I don't think so.  our defense playing some very inspired football "turned" the game for us.    Their defense didn't play as well as ours and you cannot deny that Lefevour is not a premium QB in the league so Calgary SHOULD have had a field day against him.. they didn't.   You see what I'm getting at here?  We out played Calgary.  Period. 

Yes, the 1st turnover of the game set the tone and turned it in our favour. It put 7 points on the board. It made a backup QB starting his first game even more tentative.  The 7 points turned out to be enough to win the whole freaking game. Without it, they most likely punt the ball, we get it in our end and we don't get 7, we likely don't score any points. Why do I say that... because we didn't drive the field or score any TD's in the entire game.

Their defense held our offense to under 200 net yards, which not surprisingly is about the same as our defense held their offense to.

We didn't outplay Calgary. we out-turnovered them, plain and simple. Why does it matter so much to you how we won? The main thing is that we did win.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by TBURGESS

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The pick 6, which changed the game in our favour, wasn't a forced turnover. It was a bad, telegraphed throw by a newbie Canadian QB in his first start. I'll go as far as to say that if LeFevour's first throw was a 50+ yard pick 6, the game would have turned in their favour. The Wild hit/Oko TD was a great defensive play and a forced turnover. The first turnover on downs was a forced takeaway. The second turnover on downs was a poor decision IMO, should have kicked the FG. Both of Stanzi's picks were horrible QB play. Messam's fumble was forced as was Harris'.

 

Um so they didn't run the play? They just said "this is a bad choice, so you can have the ball now bombers". Bad decision or not, it was still a takeaway, still a play the bombers made and the stamps didn't.

I can agree with the messam thoughts, though he didn't do much at all when he was just running north/south.

Edited November 8, 20178 yr by Bigblue204

21 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

For 1 quarter.

Harris averaged 8.5 per carry rushing and also had 5.6 yards per catch, 

Messam averaged 2.5 per carry and then caught 3 passes for 0 yards... yeah I'm going to say that Harris outplayed Messam all ******* game long. 

25 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

For 1 quarter.

How does their backup QB's playing like crap have any bearing on the outcome of the game?  I can't believe you're actually trying to sell that. Maybe you should go back to one of my earlier posts so you can understand it better.

Yes, the 1st turnover of the game set the tone and turned it in our favour. It put 7 points on the board. It made a backup QB starting his first game even more tentative.  The 7 points turned out to be enough to win the whole freaking game. Without it, they most likely punt the ball, we get it in our end and we don't get 7, we likely don't score any points. Why do I say that... because we didn't drive the field or score any TD's in the entire game.

Their defense held our offense to under 200 net yards, which not surprisingly is about the same as our defense held their offense to.

We didn't outplay Calgary. we out-turnovered them, plain and simple. Why does it matter so much to you how we won? The main thing is that we did win.

why is it you cut the slack for their backup but not ours?  you set some ridiculous double standards in every single one of your arguments.

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Harris averaged 8.5 per carry rushing and also had 5.6 yards per catch, 

Messam averaged 2.5 per carry and then caught 3 passes for 0 yards... yeah I'm going to say that Harris outplayed Messam all ******* game long. 

Worse yet, Messam did not seem to adjust his footwear for the second half.

7 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Worse yet, Messam did not seem to adjust his footwear for the second half.

Not sure it would have mattered. His lateral movement has taken a dive this year. Doesnt seem to have the quick feet he used too. Still ******* strong though.

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

Not sure it would have mattered. His lateral movement has taken a dive this year. Doesnt seem to have the quick feet he used too. Still ******* strong though.

I'm not sure but he hasn't seemed the same since that dirty hit he took from Awe in the BC game. Against the Riders even Carter tackled him with relative ease. He seems almost ... disinterested. I don't think he's quite right. Reminds me of Cornish after he had his bell rung while with the Stamps. 

We can only beat the team in front of us, this is true.

That said, neither Stanzi nor Buckley showed they had any business being on the field.  They wouldn't have been if that game meant anything to Calgary.  It was a glorified exhibition game in the sense that it allowed Calgary to play backup QBs with the rest of the first team offense - there was no risk or downside in it to Calgary.  Their spot in the post season, their positioning, was already secured.  However, our defense made plays when they should have and exploited a good match up.  If they hadn't dominated they way they did, I'd have been very worried and a lot more pessimistic heading into Sunday.

Our offense by and large was dreadful. We won the game in spite of LeFevour not because of him .. but .. we still won.  We are hosting a playoff game in the friendly confines of Investors Group Field.  I'm not complaining about that.