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). 

9 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

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.

All that you say about the Stamps qbs you can say about the bombers qbs. They wouldn't have been in there if the game really mattered. We went in with a game plan on offense to not **** things up, mission accomplished. The Stamps didn't do the same. Why do people try and downplay what transpired in the game? It was backup qbs vs. backup qbs and the rest of our team beat the rest of their team. 

"Mark this topic read" protocol, now in effect!

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

All that you say about the Stamps qbs you can say about the bombers qbs. They wouldn't have been in there if the game really mattered. We went in with a game plan on offense to not **** things up, mission accomplished. The Stamps didn't do the same. Why do people try and downplay what transpired in the game? It was backup qbs vs. backup qbs and the rest of our team beat the rest of their team. 

I don't think he's downplaying anything and I get what voodoochylde's saying. Had Nichols been healthy to play, he likely would have last Friday. Mitchell, OTOH, sat even though he was good to go.

41 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

I don't think he's downplaying anything and I get what voodoochylde's saying. Had Nichols been healthy to play, he likely would have last Friday. Mitchell, OTOH, sat even though he was good to go.

Is he really though?  Sitting a #1 QB to avoid further injury before playoffs could have been happening for both teams.  I suspect BLM was closer to being healthy than Nichols but the risk was the same for both.

Quote

" there’s suspicion that quarterback Bo Levi Mitchell is dealing with some kind of shoulder ailment. "

http://www.tsn.ca/dave-naylor-s-kickoff-an-exceptional-season-for-canadian-talent-1.898264

BLM has had a messed up shoulder since the summer at very least. Guy has not been his usual self this year and you can see it when you watch. He's playing through it but the guy is hurting. 

Ya he's been buggered awhile for sure cause he hasn't looked right all year. His throws have been off and he he hasn't been as effective overall. Their D has been winning them games, not BLM, as normal.... 

4 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Ya he's been buggered awhile for sure cause he hasn't looked right all year. His throws have been off and he he hasn't been as effective overall. Their D has been winning them games, not BLM, as normal.... 

He also hasn't had the weapons he's used too. I know he's been hurt, but I also think he's come back down to earth a little.

1 hour ago, bigg jay said:

Is he really though?  Sitting a #1 QB to avoid further injury before playoffs could have been happening for both teams.  I suspect BLM was closer to being healthy than Nichols but the risk was the same for both.

http://www.tsn.ca/dave-naylor-s-kickoff-an-exceptional-season-for-canadian-talent-1.898264

Fair point. However, his shoulder's seemingly been an issue for some time now. I'm not sure if a suspicion of an ailment is the same as confirmation of one, as we saw with Nichols.

I just think had Nichols been able to play, he would have. OTOH, I think Mitchell would've sat regardless of his health.

If he was totally healthy I bet BLM woulda played that game. DIckenson was not a happy camper at the prospect of going into the playoffs on a 3 game skid, I am certain the only reason BLM didn't play is cause they wanted to give his shoulder the extra rest. 

BLM is just happy that his shoulder issues didn’t  interfere with his social media gibes...

He’s got serious gibing to do over the course of the bye week you know...

As Mitchell goes, so go the Stamps- pretty much the same as the Bombers and Nichols, and the whole Stampeder team, defence and all have been off all year and trending downwards since mid-season. We are probably looking at two dinged QBs playing on Sunday and we will see which can win.

Here’s a serious question for those who question/deflate the Bombers win vs Calgary.

Andrew Buckley and the Calgary team vs. Dan LeFevour and the Bombers.

Who did you think, or even expect to win?

If you have the  to admit it...

I for one am hoping that come November 19th, BLM is discussing how he can't understand how his team lost the WF to the Blue Bombers.

It's funny that BLM, who everyone recognizes as being injured and having a bad season, still passed for more yards than Nichols did this year. Yet, folks around here think Nichols should be the MOP of the league. 

14 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Here’s a serious question for those who question/deflate the Bombers win vs Calgary.

Andrew Buckley and the Calgary team vs. Dan LeFevour and the Bombers.

Who did you think, or even expect to win?

If you have the  to admit it...

I absolutely expected the Stamps to win. What I didn't expect was that Buckley would look so bad or that he'd throw a 50+ yard pick 6 on his first throw. 

Serious question back... What do expectations have to do with the way the game unfolded?

43 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I absolutely expected the Stamps to win. What I didn't expect was that Buckley would look so bad or that he'd throw a 50+ yard pick 6 on his first throw. 

Ignoring all the other BS in this thread, this is exactly what I thought, too......was really surprised at how bad Buckley looked in the conditions. I'm just so used to Calgary being "Next Man Up" with no drop off every Goddamn time....was a delightful surprise.

Which should say something about how our defense was actually playing. Make no mistake, they were not happy with their previous 2 outings and wanted to make a statement. 

Edited November 9, 20178 yr by 17to85

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Which should say something about how our defense was actually playing. Male no mistake, they were not happy with their previous 2 outings and wanted to make a statement. 

I have to admit, I've never heard Richie slag his defense like he did after the game before Calgary.  He was truly pissed off and angry by those performances (rightfully so) and I think he definitely let that anger trickle down to the troops. I also think it was motivation to play as inspired as they did.   Hopefully they can ride the crest of this wave to the Grey Cup!  *knocks on wood*

 

40 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

It's funny that BLM, who everyone recognizes as being injured and having a bad season, still passed for more yards than Nichols did this year. Yet, folks around here think Nichols should be the MOP of the league. 

I absolutely expected the Stamps to win. What I didn't expect was that Buckley would look so bad or that he'd throw a 50+ yard pick 6 on his first throw. 

Serious question back... What do expectations have to do with the way the game unfolded?

Ah grasshopper. That’s where you’re missing the whole enchilada. 

Sometimes, in a game, the expectations are so high for one team, the reality of the game escapes them. Andrew Buckley and the 1st team offence were unprepared for the pressure the underdog Bombers were going to unleash on them. Young and inexperienced, Buckley saw forces he has not encountered when cleaning up in a game. 

So, who gets credit, and who gets blame, for the game planning? Obviously the Bombers should get recognized for the relentless pressure they put out in that game. I mean, didn’t we force the mistakes? Wasn’t  the vaunted Calgary O-line put on their heels many times?

If all other areas of the game were equal, and they were, forced errors and turnovers would rule the day. And that’s where the Bombers prevailed. 

That was no fluke and Buckley was introduced to full-on real game pressure situations courtesy of a well prepared attack. Buckley, at least had some real game time, throwing 24 passes and completing 19. 174 yards and 1 TD, no ints.

So, to answer that question, the expectations that Calgary would dominate disappeared BECAUSE of the way the game unfolded.  And they unfolded because the Bombers were the better team on that day.

12 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Ah grasshopper. That’s where you’re missing the whole enchilada. 

Sometimes, in a game, the expectations are so high for one team, the reality of the game escapes them. Andrew Buckley and the 1st team offence were unprepared for the pressure the underdog Bombers were going to unleash on them. Young and inexperienced, Buckley saw forces he has not encountered when cleaning up in a game. 

So, who gets credit, and who gets blame, for the game planning? Obviously the Bombers should get recognized for the relentless pressure they put out in that game. I mean, didn’t we force the mistakes? Wasn’t  the vaunted Calgary O-line put on their heels many times?

If all other areas of the game were equal, and they were, forced errors and turnovers would rule the day. And that’s where the Bombers prevailed. 

That was no fluke and Buckley was introduced to full-on real game pressure situations courtesy of a well prepared attack. Buckley, at least had some real game time, throwing 24 passes and completing 19. 174 yards and 1 TD, no ints.

So, to answer that question, the expectations that Calgary would dominate disappeared BECAUSE of the way the game unfolded.  And they unfolded because the Bombers were the better team on that day.

Ah blue goggled grasshopper.

3 things could happen in every game we win:

1.  We totally outplay them, which is your go to position.
2. They totally sucked, which you seem to believe is my position.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2, which is actually my position.

You say it was relentless pressure, but ignore that their backup QB was taking more time than BLM to make their decisions and that their backup QB's were telegraphing their throws. 17 says that Harris outplayed Messam, but ignores that Messam had footing problems and that Singleton, their run stopper, was out of the game by the end of the first quarter.

You call them forced turnovers and completely  ignore the mistakes that their backup QB's and others made. I say some of the turnovers were forced and some were their mistakes.

You say expectations disappeared because of the way the game unfolded. On that we agree, but then  you put on you blue goggles and say it unfolded that way because the Bombers were the better team. I say that their mistakes were as much at fault for their bad day as our good play.

All in all, it doesn't matter. The W is the only thing that does, but you and others have some sort of need to spin the win in a certain way and get pissed when I don't see it the same way you do.

We'll see this weekend if playing a motivated team with their first string QB has a different result than playing and unmotivated team with their backup QB's. 

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Ah blue goggled grasshopper.

3 things could happen in every game we win:

1.  We totally outplay them, which is your go to position.
2. They totally sucked, which you seem to believe is my position.
3. Some combination of 1 and 2, which is actually my position.

You say it was relentless pressure, but ignore that their backup QB was taking more time than BLM to make their decisions and that their backup QB's were telegraphing their throws. 17 says that Harris outplayed Messam, but ignores that Messam had footing problems and that Singleton, their run stopper, was out of the game by the end of the first quarter.

You call them forced turnovers and completely  ignore the mistakes that their backup QB's and others made. I say some of the turnovers were forced and some were their mistakes.

You say expectations disappeared because of the way the game unfolded. On that we agree, but then  you put on you blue goggles and say it unfolded that way because the Bombers were the better team. I say that their mistakes were as much at fault for their bad day as our good play.

All in all, it doesn't matter. The W is the only thing that does, but you and others have some sort of need to spin the win in a certain way and get pissed when I don't see it the same way you do.

We'll see this weekend if playing a motivated team with their first string QB has a different result than playing and unmotivated team with their backup QB's. 

Its probably because you are one of those guys who always look for a way to spin it negatively. Im pretty sure you are a bomber fan but... Reading your posts.. Like all of them... Could have fooled me. Its one thing to criticize... Its another to always do it. 

19 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

17 says that Harris outplayed Messam, but ignores that Messam had footing problems

How is one player finding the footing and the other not being able to anything but outplaying him? Get your head out of your ass man. 

Why is this so complicated......both teams were playing (ineffective) backups at QB.   Difference was the pressure/big plays made by one defense, out there.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Which should say something about how our defense was actually playing. Make no mistake, they were not happy with their previous 2 outings and wanted to make a statement. 

For some reason we seem to do well in the snow of McMahon.

 

17 minutes ago, do or die said:

Why is this so complicated......both teams were playing (ineffective) backups at QB.   Difference was the pressure/big plays made by one defense, out there.

It's so much more nuanced than that.  I can't believe this post.  Outrageous 

6 minutes ago, Floyd said:

It's so much more nuanced than that.  I can't believe this post.  Outrageous 

Sad.  50 years of watching Bomber football....and still needing refinements.....