9 catches on 21 passes, 95 yards no tds 5 games. I dont suspect he is highly paid but I feel we'd be better served giving some one like thompkins a look, or bringing back denmark, heck bring in backari grant and start an extra NI. 

Bowman is a guy you need to involve and target a lot to get any thing out of and even then we all know his struggles with his hands. 

Lapo’s offence is totally designed for Flanders to jump in

id still like to see 3 NI Rec though

55 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

From the Coach's Show it sounds like O'Shea will be holding auditions to replace Bowman, he mentioned Lankford, Thompkins, Washington and Simonese.  No mention of Petermann and doesn't sound like he would consider Flanders as a replacement as he's too similar in style to Demski and Harris.

I think petermann is playing a different position though its probably an over look.

Lankford is a fear for me. Though id take him over bowman, id rather play couture at TE full time. Id rather play wade at TE full time actually. 

I suspect of thompkins/washington doesnt pan out we will see the air lifts begin early. 

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

Can someone frame this     I honestly thought the Bombers would win the Grey Cup before you would ever say those words! 

Not I- I am still hanging this beauty from Tberg in my signature.

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

From the Coach's Show it sounds like O'Shea will be holding auditions to replace Bowman, he mentioned Lankford, Thompkins, Washington and Simonese.  No mention of Petermann and doesn't sound like he would consider Flanders as a replacement as he's too similar in style to Demski and Harris.

If he's healthy which he is I'd bet its Flanders coming in. 

45 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

When I'm wrong I say it. Heck, it's even some idiots tag line around here. 

I'm said Idiot.

 

I have it in my signature to remind me that you are not a voluntarily obtuse assclown-troll who posts in a manner akin to a snide-ass backhand complimenting, fact denying, finger-in-ear shouting, dumb cluck. 

It's there to remind me that you are human and a bit steadfast in your own convictions with your own take on facts. 

Edited July 24, 20187 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

7 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I'm said Idiot.

 

I have it in my signature to remind me that you are not a voluntarily obtuse assclown-troll who posts in a manner akin to a snide-ass backhand complimenting, fact denying, finger-in-ear shouting, dumb cluck. 

It's there to remind me that you are human and a bit steadfast in your own convictions with your own take on facts. 

You sir, are my hero and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Obviously this trade is a sign that Walters peruses MBB and is freeing up cap space to bring back Greg Carr, Aaron Kelly and a slew of other previous Bomber WRs.

Was thinking more along the lines...... of Jason Bray and Antonio Brown

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I'm said Idiot.

 

I have it in my signature to remind me that you are not a voluntarily obtuse assclown-troll who posts in a manner akin to a snide-ass backhand complimenting, fact denying, finger-in-ear shouting, dumb cluck. 

It's there to remind me that you are human and a bit steadfast in your own convictions. 

Yup the idiot is still you and this post proves it. Full of crap. None of it true. There is no time that I complimented you in any way shape or form. I deny opinions, not facts, but you don't seem to know the difference between the two. Putting one's fingers in their ears so they can't read doesn't make any sense. A joke I guess, but if you have to guess, it's obviously not funny. At least I don't call you an assclown-troll or a dumb cluck. I just think it.

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

Lapo’s offence is totally designed for Flanders to jump in

id still like to see 3 NI Rec though

Why...

Well, for one thing, it would help us to totally forget those years when we could only utilize 1 to 1 & a 1/2 receivers.

Also, it’s a Canadian thing to go along with the Winnipeg thing we have going with Demski, Harris LaFrance etc.

And the 3 Canadians in charge of the Club. 

It would be Winnipeg  unique...

It would also be rushing a rookie on to the field while also potentially hurting our now strong cnd depth. While simultaneously leaving a more talented rec on the sidelines.

9 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Well, for one thing, it would help us to totally forget those years when we could only utilize 1 to 1 & a 1/2 receivers.

Also, it’s a Canadian thing to go along with the Winnipeg thing we have going with Demski, Harris LaFrance etc.

And the 3 Canadians in charge of the Club. 

It would be Winnipeg  unique...

Cool- but does it give us a better shot at a "W"?

starting 3 Canadian receivers serves no point unless we needed to get another American on defense...and we don't need to be doing that.

All it does is make us a weaker offence

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

starting 3 Canadian receivers serves no point unless we needed to get another American on defense...and we don't need to be doing that.

All it does is make us a weaker offence

How does it make us weaker?  Lafrance, peterman and Augustine have all shown they can play

cant actually get weaker than 6 catches for 96 yards or whatever it was - and Lankford is probably the next man up

3 quality NI Rec gives us a ton of options 

We don't have the depth to start three Canadian receivers. If we had a healthy Matt Coates it's something I would be willing to consider, but having Peterman back up three guys doesn't sound great.

I really hope we don't replace Bowman with Lankford. That's a sideways move if I've ever heard of one.

10 minutes ago, Floyd said:

How does it make us weaker?  Lafrance, peterman and Augustine have all shown they can play

cant actually get weaker than 6 catches for 96 yards or whatever it was - and Lankford is probably the next man up

3 quality NI Rec gives us a ton of options 

Don't base an import position's production based on the previous player. Throw what Bowman did out the window. A Tompkins or Washington...heck even a Lankford over the long haul will be far more productive and garner far more attention from a defense than a Lafrance..Augustine (both of whom aren't receiver options)..Peterman or a Simonese...tho a Simonese on the rail would be the best route to take if you went 3 Canucks.

Playing 2 rookie Canadians with Demski makes us weaker....and thats not even debatable...also...you just lost your depth if one gets hurt...and as the old adage goes...every rookie you start you are going to lose a game...so with Sayles..Cooper..Streveler already having started thats our 3 losses..we don't need the extra couple in a tough west division

Peterman and Simonese ...and really Lafrance havn't proven jack yet so not sure why that would be considered an upgrade. And honestly I think Augustine is a better back than Lafrance...but thats just my opinion

I believe we already know what we have with Lankford.   I would like for them to give the unknown guys a chance to see if they can shine rather then going with the already known (mediocrity).

39 minutes ago, Booch said:

Don't base an import position's production based on the previous player. Throw what Bowman did out the window. A Tompkins or Washington...heck even a Lankford over the long haul will be far more productive and garner far more attention from a defense than a Lafrance..Augustine (both of whom aren't receiver options)..Peterman or a Simonese...tho a Simonese on the rail would be the best route to take if you went 3 Canucks.

Playing 2 rookie Canadians with Demski makes us weaker....and thats not even debatable...also...you just lost your depth if one gets hurt...and as the old adage goes...every rookie you start you are going to lose a game...so with Sayles..Cooper..Streveler already having started thats our 3 losses..we don't need the extra couple in a tough west division

Peterman and Simonese ...and really Lafrance havn't proven jack yet so not sure why that would be considered an upgrade. And honestly I think Augustine is a better back than Lafrance...but thats just my opinion

Lafrance played well from what I’ve seen... peterman has made some key catches - not much point having 8 NI Rec/RB on roster/IR and not trying them out 

I see nothing to lose and everything to gain for at least a couple games

Adams-dressler-demski-wolitarsky-peterman

simonise and Flanders as backups

I actually don’t see our import depth at REC - much bigger problem than NI 

 

I don’t think anybody is saying we should go with 3 NIs as receivers, but the point is we could do it for the first time in..yikes.

Replacing Bowman will not be difficult, it’s the decision whom to go with that may be difficult for some of us to accept. We’ve seen, partly what Lankford can do but most of us are looking for the excitement of what a Washington or a Thompkins can bring to the field..another option in this potent offence.

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

Lafrance played well from what I’ve seen... peterman has made some key catches - not much point having 8 NI Rec/RB on roster/IR and not trying them out 

I see nothing to lose and everything to gain for at least a couple games

Adams-dressler-demski-wolitarsky-peterman

simonise and Flanders as backups

I actually don’t see our import depth at REC - much bigger problem than NI 

 

Quote

I am not sure that Dressler poses the same threat to opposing defences as he has in previous years,  or if he is, he hasn't shown it this year.

 

19 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

If Montreal throws to Bowman early and often and puts up with his drops, he can be an asset. We didn't use him that way.

you mean like throwing to him once, and then avoiding the rest of the game because he dropped one?  or when you finally do go to him, throw it well behind and low so he has to go to the turf to actually catch it.... if Nichols could hit someone in stride instead of standing still or coming back to the ball, maybe the passing game would be more effective!

 

Edited July 24, 20187 yr by Goalie

2 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

you mean like throwing to him once, and then avoiding the rest of the game because he dropped one?  or when you finally do go to him, throw it well behind and low so he has to go to the turf to actually catch it.... if Nichols could hit someone in stride instead of standing still or coming back to the ball, maybe the passing game would be more effective!

Or maybe not throwing to him cuz hes not open and gives up on his routes early?