Worst second half of football ever. expand..........

Edited November 13, 20178 yr by pigseye

I think that idea is a remnant of when Doug Berry was here and that was what they did. 

On 11/15/2017 at 8:51 AM, 17to85 said:

I would suggest the team in it's current state is already a grey cup contender Ritchie Hall and all. Gotta remember Edmonton was also a 12 win team. Can't all be lucky enough to play in the shitty eastern conference where showing up is often enough to win a game in the playoffs. 

So that includes LaPolice?   Come on, say it.  You know you want to.

didn't I just say it? 

On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:51 AM, 17to85 said:

I would suggest the team in it's current state is already a grey cup contender Ritchie Hall and all. Gotta remember Edmonton was also a 12 win team. Can't all be lucky enough to play in the shitty eastern conference where showing up is often enough to win a game in the playoffs. 

And you'd be wrong.

Edmonton left no doubt who the better team was, the game was never in doubt after the midway point of the 3rd.

Heck, if Calgary had anything to play for instead of rolling over in the final game, we are probably playing on the road. This team couldn't secure the home playoff game against BC & Hamilton at home and TO on the road.

This team was regressing down the stretch and it came to head in the playoff game.

This team needs more than a tweak to be considered GC challenger.

14 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

didn't I just say it? 

I was hoping you'd let it out and say something like: "I think that with Paul LaPolice as our Offensive Coordinator, we are Grey Cup contenders and I'm thankful we have him, even though I pretend I really don't like him, due to feelings that we really don't have to get into."

 

7 minutes ago, pigseye said:

And you'd be wrong.

Edmonton left no doubt who the better team was, the game was never in doubt after the midway point of the 3rd.

Heck, if Calgary had anything to play for instead of rolling over in the final game, we are probably playing on the road. This team couldn't secure the home playoff game against BC & Hamilton at home and TO on the road.

This team was regressing down the stretch and it came to head in the playoff game.

This team needs more than a tweak to be considered GC challenger.

I think you overestimate what it takes to be a GC challenger.  We've seen sub-.500 teams win the Grey Cup.  To suggest a 12-6 team is not a challenger is simply asinine.

11 minutes ago, pigseye said:

This team was regressing down the stretch and it came to head in the playoff game.

Yeah, losing top players like Westerman, Leggett, and Adams surely had nothing to do with it. Oh, and of course a QB playing with a broken finger is irrelevant, too.

Take your head outta your rectum.

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I think you overestimate what it takes to be a GC challenger.  We've seen sub-.500 teams win the Grey Cup.  To suggest a 12-6 team is not a challenger is simply asinine.

It takes more than a good/great regular season record to be a contender, to suggest otherwise is simply asinine.

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

It takes more than a good/great regular season record to be a contender, to suggest otherwise is simply asinine.

So in your eyes a team is not a contender until they have won the Grey Cup?  Or were you looking at the 8-10 Stamps and 8-9-1 Redblacks and saying "Oh yeah, they're contenders for sure."

In a pig's eye, indeed.

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Yeah, losing top players like Westerman, Leggett, and Adams surely had nothing to do with it. Oh, and of course a QB playing with a broken finger is irrelevant, too.

Take your head outta your rectum.

The injury excuse? That's the best you can up with. Didn't seem to affect Nichols performance did it? Even when healthy, that playoff game was one of his performances of the year, statistically.

You, like many on here, have over rated the loss of the injured players. This team was playing it's best ball when Dressler was out of the lineup.

Just now, Atomic said:

So in your eyes a team is not a contender until they have won the Grey Cup?  Or were you looking at the 8-10 Stamps and 8-9-1 Redblacks and saying "Oh yeah, they're contenders for sure."

In a pig's eye, indeed.

Ask the Stamps what a great regular season record gets you, or the Bombers for that matter.

Defence wins championships always has always will, and offence that doesn't hurt you and controls the line of scrimmage.

Do I think this team is close, yes, but there is a lot of pieces that need to fall into place before they are a serious threat.

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Ask the Stamps what a great regular season record gets you, or the Bombers for that matter.

Defence wins championships always has always will, and offence that doesn't hurt you and controls the line of scrimmage.

Do I think this team is close, yes, but there is a lot of pieces that need to fall into place before they are a serious threat.

Sure they need to add pieces.  Every year is a different team.  But the bottom line is that in the CFL, if you make the playoffs you're a Grey Cup contender.  You just need to get hot at the right time.

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

Sure they need to add pieces.  Every year is a different team.  But the bottom line is that in the CFL, if you make the playoffs you're a Grey Cup contender.  You just need to get hot at the right time.

History, for the Bombers anyways, doesn't bear that out. 27 years of evidence to back it up.

19 minutes ago, pigseye said:

History, for the Bombers anyways, doesn't bear that out. 27 years of evidence to back it up.

Actually, history does bear that out.  If you check over the past 27 years, 100% of the time, the team that won the Grey Cup had qualified for the playoffs.  Just because we haven't won it doesn't make it less true.  However, getting to the playoffs, especially in a 9 team league in which 6 will qualify, should simply be step one .  We're getting  step one done now.  Next is step two...

Edited November 16, 20178 yr by WBBFanWest
good engrish

5 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

We're getting  to step one done now.  Next is step two...

Is step 2 becoming a serious contender or actually winning it? Because I'd say you have to actually win a playoff game first.

39 minutes ago, pigseye said:

The injury excuse? That's the best you can up with. Didn't seem to affect Nichols performance did it? Even when healthy, that playoff game was one of his performances of the year, statistically.

You, like many on here, have over rated the loss of the injured players. This team was playing it's best ball when Dressler was out of the lineup.

You're denser than a neutron star. And apparently have the attention span of a de-winged mosquito during games, if you even watched them at all.

Nichols getting his finger broken in week 16 vs. HAM affected his play for the remainder of the season. He struggled with passing after that and the WSF was the first time his passes looked sharp and accurate as they had prior to his injury. As a result of that injury, the offense struggled during the final month of the season and that affected the team down the stretch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how significant that was. Losing Adams was also costly with him being Nichols' top passing weapon. Leggett's importance to the defense can't be understated. He was a key cog in the LB corps all season long, generated six turnovers himself, and brought crucial intangibles to that unit: proven leadership and solid experience. Westerman was another key piece to that defense, not only for his skill but his leadership, too.

Injuries are not an excuse, but they are a factor in a team's overall ability to succeed. The Bombers were one of the healthiest teams going into the final stretch of the season and then injuries mounted and the team struggled. That is not a coincidence and doesn't make the loss of those players overrated.

Edited November 16, 20178 yr by blue_gold_84

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Is step 2 becoming a serious contender or actually winning it? Because I'd say you have to actually win a playoff game first.

Well yes, you can't make it to the Grey Cup without winning a playoff game, that is obvious.

7 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Is step 2 becoming a serious contender or actually winning it? Because I'd say you have to actually win a playoff game first.

Step 2 would be winning it.  I'm reasonably happy with the fact that we are now have a team that can be expected to be in the playoffs.  For a lot of teams, that was never really an issue, but it was for us.  We seem to be over that hurdle.  With a proper DC scheme, a legitimate MAC and one more quality receiver, I really think we're there.

36 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Step 2 would be winning it.  I'm reasonably happy with the fact that we are now have a team that can be expected to be in the playoffs.  For a lot of teams, that was never really an issue, but it was for us.  We seem to be over that hurdle.  With a proper DC scheme, a legitimate MAC and one more quality receiver, I really think we're there.

I couldn't agree more.

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

And you'd be wrong.

Edmonton left no doubt who the better team was, the game was never in doubt after the midway point of the 3rd.

Heck, if Calgary had anything to play for instead of rolling over in the final game, we are probably playing on the road. This team couldn't secure the home playoff game against BC & Hamilton at home and TO on the road.

This team was regressing down the stretch and it came to head in the playoff game.

This team needs more than a tweak to be considered GC challenger.

no you're wrong. That game wasn't the blow out some are making it seem. It, like most games hinged on a few key plays. I don't know how you can say this team couldn't secure a home playoff game, they can only beat the team in front of them and I do believe that even with BLM they could have taken Calgary. BLM ain't been anything special this year, especially late in the year.

We have to stop downplaying what we have here. Some of you though expect perfection every week from the team and that never happens to any team. Too high when they win and too low when they lose. 

17 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

no you're wrong. That game wasn't the blow out some are making it seem. It, like most games hinged on a few key plays. I don't know how you can say this team couldn't secure a home playoff game, they can only beat the team in front of them and I do believe that even with BLM they could have taken Calgary. BLM ain't been anything special this year, especially late in the year.

We have to stop downplaying what we have here. Some of you though expect perfection every week from the team and that never happens to any team. Too high when they win and too low when they lose. 

Yes it was a blowout

Yes had Calgary played all their starters, Lefevour isn't winning that game for us.

Nobody's downplaying what we have, only that we are not as close as some think we are to being considered a GC champ.

2007 was the last time we had anything close and had KG been healthy the streak would be over.

No one except you. 

You believe the sky is falling, that is completely false. I mean really Edmonton beat the Bombers once this year, it just happened to be in the only game that mattered, but the thing about football is that it's a harsh mistress, lose one game in the playoffs your done no matter what else you did last season. 

Let me ask you this, is Calgary not a contender cause they've lost a bunch of playoff games when they had such good records in the regular season? 

On 11/15/2017 at 10:27 AM, Booch said:

This is not necessarily accurate actually. The team may plan and scheme for certain plays to be used and established but the notion that that first drive is pre-scripted and ran as such is just nonesense...not sure where you get that from...It may be pre-planned on what they want to do and established based on looks and flow of the game but to say that a team is running a script of plays they mapped out all week is quite honestly laughable...sorry

If anything the first play most likely is pre-determined to see what the defense is going to show coverage wise or get an idea of their base package or coverage's going into the game, but even then it doesn't sway the offence into running a pre-practiced offensive drive of plays

No, no it isnt. Scripting and practicing of an opening series of plays started in football in the late 70s and by the mid 80s was the norm in the nfl, ncaa, and cfl. Generally, 18 or so plays are scripted. Not allways run in order, and at times none scripted plays are mixed in. You might open with plays 12-15 or 6-9. But they are scripted, practiced and pre planned based on how you want to try to beat that defense.   Sorry but this is 30+ year old news, and factual. 

Before calling some thing laughable of which you dont have direct knowledge, I would suggest looking into it. If you are interested in it, i can send you a ton of information about scripted openers.

https://www.afcaweekly.com/2014/12/scripting-the-offense/

 

On 11/15/2017 at 11:41 AM, 17to85 said:

I think that idea is a remnant of when Doug Berry was here and that was what they did. 

Nope. Its a football wide thing. You would have an incredibly hard time finding any team at any reasonable competitive level that doesnt do it. 

 

23 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

No, no it isnt. Scripting and practicing of an opening series of plays started in football in the late 70s and by the mid 80s was the norm in the nfl, ncaa, and cfl. Generally, 18 or so plays are scripted. Not allways run in order, and at times none scripted plays are mixed in. You might open with plays 12-15 or 6-9. But they are scripted, practiced and pre planned based on how you want to try to beat that defense.   Sorry but this is 30+ year old news, and factual. 

Before calling some thing laughable of which you dont have direct knowledge, I would suggest looking into it. If you are interested in it, i can send you a ton of information about scripted openers.

https://www.afcaweekly.com/2014/12/scripting-the-offense/

 

Nope. Its a football wide thing. You would have an incredibly hard time finding any team at any reasonable competitive level that doesnt do it. 

 

pretty sure i have a pretty good direct knowledge as have played in 2 of the 3 leagues u mentioned.as well as been involved in creating playbooks and packages.maybe some teams run a series of pre-determined plays...called game planning but to say to run play A...B..C..D...E in a series is yes laughable and not a recipe for success.

Now you may yes have a set of plays based on scouting to counter act a teams sets..schemes..personel etc..etc but game flow and situation dictates what you run..as well as what seems to be working outside your game prep too

3 minutes ago, Booch said:

pretty sure i have a pretty good direct knowledge as have played in 2 of the 3 leagues u mentioned.as well as been involved in creating playbooks and packages.maybe some teams run a series of pre-determined plays...called game planning but to say to run play A...B..C..D...E in a series is yes laughable and not a recipe for success.

Now you may yes have a set of plays based on scouting to counter act a teams sets..schemes..personel etc..etc but game flow and situation dictates what you run..as well as what seems to be working outside your game prep too

Its not that those 15-18 are in a strict series no. But those 15-18 in the first 20 some yes. As i said, you do mix in other plays situationaly. 

Game flow and situation are Set by your opener. Thats how you set and control the tone. After that you cant pre plan, only strategize and prepare tactics. 18 plays in you arent gonna say give up on the run (unless ur plop) and arent going to know for sure if X strategy/tactic/play has been countered off the table by the D.