Jump to content

Regular Season Bomber News & Discussion


BigBlue

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

Gimme a break - Streveler was plugged into a Nichols' offence with nothing prepared for him by Lapo.... they would have had two weeks to set up schemes for Streveler

Its EXACTLY what you want for your young QB - an easy(ish) game and then a game against Benevides...

This is exactly what you don't want now...  Wasting more time if Nichols looks good against Montreal and then throws another game away against Edmonton...?

Worse if, Nichols sucks and Streveler has to start against Reilly - that's going to get in his head from the first minute of the game.

My thinking exactly. We are going to find out if Nichols blossoms or wilts under pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Floyd said:

You're post was worded really strangely...  like of course if BC wins more games they will make the playoffs and we won't - same with Saskatchewan.

If we win more games, then we will make the playoffs. 

Pretty neat, eh?

You're still not getting it. Because BC has a game in hand, they control their own destiny and we don't control ours. They need to win the extra game AND win as many games as we do. As long as they do that, no matter how many games are won, they get 4th place or better in the west. In short, us having the head to head series doesn't mean as much as them having the game in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sard said:

Outside of two very bad decisions, Nichols was playing fine.  They were moving the ball without too much trouble, he just tried to force a throw when he didn't need to, and then he made a bad decision rather than take a sac.

I don't think Nichols has been playing all that poorly the last few games, just making a few bad decisions that have cost the team.  If he even had one of those back in the Banjo bowl, we win that game.

Nichols played like **** in the BB and if you can't see that you are blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

Nichols played like **** in the BB and if you can't see that you are blind.

Well yes, those bad decisions were egregious, but if we were to take into account his game before the complete meltdown it wasn't that bad. Especially when you factor in the drops he had early. 

The entire offense has been **** the last month and it's not all on the qb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Well yes, those bad decisions were egregious, but if we were to take into account his game before the complete meltdown it wasn't that bad. Especially when you factor in the drops he had early. 

The entire offense has been **** the last month and it's not all on the qb.

Of course not. We have a weak international receiving group, the OC isn't great but Nichols has been awful this past month and not really good all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Well yes, those bad decisions were egregious, but if we were to take into account his game before the complete meltdown it wasn't that bad. Especially when you factor in the drops he had early. 

The entire offense has been **** the last month and it's not all on the qb.

The Banjo Bowl was 100% on Nichols... no reason to throw those two garbage high school interceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Why will that get in his head?

Same as Nichols... trying to do too much.  Forcing stuff to keep up with the inevitable Reilly late game drive or big plays.

Starting against Johnny Manziel is like a best case scenario for Streveler... no pressure, no media attention and Manziel sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike said:

I still really like Charles Nelson although I'm still not sure he fits a role here. Could be like a Fogg-esque player who could take snaps on O as well, but not sure his high end is enough.

isnt he coming off a major knee or ankle injury too?

4 hours ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

I had to double check Boobie Hobbs. At first I thought it was a joke....and then I thought maybe it was supposed to be Bobbie Hobbs and was a typo on the player sheet they handed out......nope It's Boobie. And anyone who saw him yesterday.....he seems to be a weird dude.

boobie and poop. with names like that how could we lose? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Only if you are ready to move on from Nichols, which is a short sighted view in my mind. Streveler hasn't proven he's better yet so until that happens stick with Nichols. 

So what is your standard for moving on from a QB... Nichols absolutely handed the Banjo Bowl to Sask - that sidearm toss to Jefferson(?) should have been enough

Nichols has thrown away three games in a row...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Floyd said:

So what is your standard for moving on from a QB... Nichols absolutely handed the Banjo Bowl to Sask - that sidearm toss to Jefferson(?) should have been enough

Nichols has thrown away three games in a row...

When the backup unequivocally takes the job. Streveler didn't do that against the Riders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 17to85 said:

And if you start Streveler and he beats a sad sack Montreal team and the team goes into Edmonton thinking problem solved and turns out he isn't really ready then you have both qbs being ******. 

No given that there wasn't a huge difference in their respective performances last game you 100% go back to your veteran guy.

That's just ridiculous. Streveler was forced to run Nichols crappy QB package, since Lapo hadn't apparently prepared a package for Streveler, and did just as good as Nichols did. That's a win for Streveler. How do you think Nichols would do running Streveler's QB package? LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tracker said:

Aaaand,,,,to absolutely no one's surprise, O'Shea has confirmed that Nichols will start against Montreal this Friday.

Aaaand ... O'Shea will ask Medlock to attempt a 61 yard field go- ... oh wait, that was a different game. Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...