I'm normally a huge supporter of the starting QB until they've proven otherwise and I think Nichols might be on the cusp of accomplishing that for me.  he looks either hurt or in a funk without any light at the tunnel.  hes always been a game manager QB and needed to be on point to have success..  something has knocked that awry. 

 

Before the season becomes a write off, I think we would benefit big time.from a concept like this.  it worked pretty good in a few previous instances in BC with Reilly and Lulay/Jennings and further back with Maas and Ray..  it has the potential to both spurn on Streveler to be better and to kick Nichols in the ass to be better or lose his job..  the season is getting to a very close breaking point and if our offense doesnt get back on track, we are sunk with how our defense has been..

 

Will the coaches go for it?? Doubtful as Oshea is stubborn and loyal but I really hope we see Nichols with a shortleash and Streveler off the bench if struggles continue at the clip that they have been.

 

 

 

We dipped our toes into it a little bit more this week, and it worked well. Streveler is a strong change of pace to nichols. It can work. But its hard to manage and very risky. 

Should we do it more? yeah. Will we? probably not. 

2 hours ago, SPuDS said:

I'm normally a huge supporter of the starting QB until they've proven otherwise and I think Nichols might be on the cusp of accomplishing that for me.  he looks either hurt or in a funk without any light at the tunnel.  hes always been a game manager QB and needed to be on point to have success..  something has knocked that awry. 

 

Before the season becomes a write off, I think we would benefit big time.from a concept like this.  it worked pretty good in a few previous instances in BC with Reilly and Lulay/Jennings and further back with Maas and Ray..  it has the potential to both spurn on Streveler to be better and to kick Nichols in the ass to be better or lose his job..  the season is getting to a very close breaking point and if our offense doesnt get back on track, we are sunk with how our defense has been..

 

Will the coaches go for it?? Doubtful as Oshea is stubborn and loyal but I really hope we see Nichols with a shortleash and Streveler off the bench if struggles continue at the clip that they have been.

 

 

 

Hey SpuDs,  didn't you hear O'Shea's comments last week about Streveler getting more time playing this season than they wanted because Matt was injured? In other words, he's been capped & now they won't play him for reasons only known to Pierce, LaPo & O'Shea. Chalk it up to the logic of Mike O'Shea.

In the Ottawa game, he puts in Streveler after Nichols got hurt late, late, late in the 4th quarter. Okay fine, it's game over.  Live to fight another day. Give the backups achance for playing time. Then O'Shea pulls the kid & puts Nichols back out there with 2 minutes left & down 23 points. Why???  O'Shea in his infinite wisdom still thinks Nichols  gives us the best chance to win. The best chance to win??? We had absolutely no chance to win. The game was over at that point.

What about yesterday? He tells the media that he kept Nichols & Harris in until the very end because we may need a tie breaker. He's worried about a tie breaker instead of the safety of his starters in a blowout & at the same time denies his backups the chance to get some much needed playing time??? This crazy coach should be fired at season's end. Streveler should indeed play more & I agree with you. Don't start him yet just give him some meaningful reps for experience like you say & see how he does. I almost freaking guarantee Walters will give us some lame excuse to keep O'Shea around expecting us to buy in & say nothing. Neither will Miller. He'll just smile & say all is well but hey people, we need you to buy more tickets. 

Edited August 26, 20187 yr by SpeedFlex27

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Hey SpuDs,  didn't you hear O'Shea's comments last week about Streveler getting more time playing this season than they wanted because Matt was injured? In other words, he's been capped & now they won't play him for reasons only known to Pierce, LaPo & O'Shea. Chalk it up to the logic of Mike O'Shea.

In the Ottawa game, he puts in Streveler after Nichols got hurt late, late, late in the 4th quarter. Okay fine, it's game over.  Live to fight another day. Give the backups achance for playing time. Then O'Shea pulls the kid & puts Nichols back out there with 2 minutes left & down 23 points. Why???  O'Shea in his infinite wisdom still thinks Nichols  gives us the best chance to win. The best chance to win??? We had absolutely no chance to win. The game was over at that point.

What about yesterday? He tells the media that he kept Nichols & Harris in until the very end because we may need a tie breaker. He's worried about a tie breaker instead of the safety of his starters in a blowout & at the same time denies his backups the chance to get some much needed playing time??? This crazy coach should be fired at season's end. Streveler should indeed play more & I agree with you. Don't start him yet just give him some meaningful reps for experience like you say & see how he does. I almost freaking guarantee Walters will give us some lame excuse to keep O'Shea around expecting us to buy in & say nothing. Neither will Miller. He'll just smile & say all is well but hey people, we need you to buy more tickets. 

Not new news, but old hat.  When O'Shea introduced the unproven Drew Willy as his starter at his first press conference I knew something wasn't quite right. 

When Mike Kelly introduced the unproven......

Doesen't pay to go too far back, I suppose

 

4 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Not new news, but old hat.  When O'Shea introduced the unproven Drew Willy as his starter at his first press conference I knew something wasn't quite right. 

When Walters introduced the unproven Michael O'Shea as his Head Coach at his first press conference I knew something wasn't quite right.

6 hours ago, J5V said:

When Walters introduced the unproven Michael O'Shea as his Head Coach at his first press conference I knew something wasn't quite right.

It was a risk- a shiny new and unproven GM with a shiny new and unproven rookie head coach. What could go wrong?

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by Tracker

On 2018-08-27 at 9:00 AM, Tracker said:

It was a risk- a shiny new and unproven GM with a shiny new and unproven rookie head coach. What could go wrong?

Didnt realize back to back playoff seasons after missing how many could be considered wrong.. but hey dont let reality get in the way of your slamming of our management.

5 hours ago, SPuDS said:

Didnt realize back to back playoff seasons after missing how many could be considered wrong.. but hey dont let reality get in the way of your slamming of our management.

My beef is not and has never been with this management. The problems with the team appear to be with the coaching and possibly player recruitment. The point is that a rookie GM and a rookie head coach at the same time  taking over a troubled and talent-poor team is pretty much a recipe for struggle.

14 minutes ago, Tracker said:

My beef is not and has never been with this management. The problems with the team appear to be with the coaching and possibly player recruitment. The point is that a rookie GM and a rookie head coach at the same time  taking over a troubled and talent-poor team is pretty much a recipe for struggle.

How long until they are no longer considered rookies ?

42 minutes ago, Tracker said:

My beef is not and has never been with this management. The problems with the team appear to be with the coaching and possibly player recruitment. The point is that a rookie GM and a rookie head coach at the same time  taking over a troubled and talent-poor team is pretty much a recipe for struggle.

Except they haven't struggled the last few seasons.... over .500 and winning as much as anyone not named calgary... unless this is a case of "if you're not first, you're last"

Cause to me those rookies turned the franchise around and put it on pretty stable ground, to the point where .500 is unacceptable.

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Except they haven't struggled the last few seasons.... over .500 and winning as much as anyone not named Calgary... unless this is a case of "if you're not first, you're last"

Cause to me those rookies turned the franchise around and put it on pretty stable ground, to the point where .500 is unacceptable.

There is a big difference between "better" and "good", particularly when you compare the Bomber track record over the past few years to say, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton. How many years of "better" are you prepared to accept?

 

 

We had 2 back to back seasons with double digit win totals, on pace to be in that range this year.... what's the problem other than a few losses and no grey cup? This team has stability. Walter's and oshea have done well considering where they started. Let's let them finish it.

7 hours ago, SPuDS said:

Didnt realize back to back playoff seasons after missing how many could be considered wrong.. but hey dont let reality get in the way of your slamming of our management.

Hate to be "that guy", but technically since 6 of the 9 teams make the playoffs every year, it's actually harder not to make the playoffs... regardless of competency.

3 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Hate to be "that guy", but technically since 6 of the 9 teams make the playoffs every year, it's actually harder not to make the playoffs... regardless of competency.

In the last two years we have had two teams that have not won more than 9 games win the championship. If you make the playoffs ten straight years your going to win a championship.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

We had 2 back to back seasons with double digit win totals, on pace to be in that range this year.... what's the problem other than a few losses, zero playoffs wins, now headed for a .500 season in a nine team league and no Grey Cup? This team has stability. Walter's and O'Shea have done well considering where they started. Let's let them finish it.

FFIFY

53 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

We had 2 back to back seasons with double digit win totals, on pace to be in that range this year.... what's the problem other than a few losses and no grey cup? This team has stability. Walter's and oshea have done well considering where they started. Let's let them finish it.

The voice of reason! We’re 28-18 in the past two seasons plus this season and we’re acting like the sky is falling. Good teams go through adversity. Remember Ottawa and Toronto getting hot when it counted and winning the Grey Cup? I do. It’s ok to have high expectations and wanting to be better but I wouldn’t panic just yet. 

I have no idea why anyone would **** on Walters... he's drafted well and made some great signings.    

The absolutely only guy who must go is  Hall and that's about it.    If we had a half decent defense our season would be going way better.    

Remember a few years back when we had a killer D and no offense... we were in so many games because the defense gave our **** offense great field position and many chances to move the ball.    To me this season (and last) it seems like the defense is on the field forever  (non stop 10 yard passes on our soft zone) and the offense goes on the field and if they don't keep up we are down by 2 - 3 scores and have to resort to the hurry up offense going deep....   If we had anything resembling a good defense then the O would be perfectly fine.  

Watching guys throw 10  - 20 yard passes and seemingly have a 90% completion rating in the first half is completely deflating and clearly  after 2 years it's not working for Hall. 

4 hours ago, Tracker said:

FFIFY

Fee Fee?

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

I have no idea why anyone would **** on Walters... he's drafted well and made some great signings.    

The absolutely only guy who must go is  Hall and that's about it.    If we had a half decent defense our season would be going way better.    

Remember a few years back when we had a killer D and no offense... we were in so many games because the defense gave our **** offense great field position and many chances to move the ball.    To me this season (and last) it seems like the defense is on the field forever  (non stop 10 yard passes on our soft zone) and the offense goes on the field and if they don't keep up we are down by 2 - 3 scores and have to resort to the hurry up offense going deep....   If we had anything resembling a good defense then the O would be perfectly fine.  

Watching guys throw 10  - 20 yard passes and seemingly have a 90% completion rating in the first half is completely deflating and clearly  after 2 years it's not working for Hall. 

Hell yeah. Hall must go.  But will he? You know O'Shea what he's like. 

7 hours ago, Brandon said:

I have no idea why anyone would **** on Walters... he's drafted well and made some great signings.    

The absolutely only guy who must go is  Hall and that's about it.    If we had a half decent defense our season would be going way better.    

Remember a few years back when we had a killer D and no offense... we were in so many games because the defense gave our **** offense great field position and many chances to move the ball.    To me this season (and last) it seems like the defense is on the field forever  (non stop 10 yard passes on our soft zone) and the offense goes on the field and if they don't keep up we are down by 2 - 3 scores and have to resort to the hurry up offense going deep....   If we had anything resembling a good defense then the O would be perfectly fine.  

Watching guys throw 10  - 20 yard passes and seemingly have a 90% completion rating in the first half is completely deflating and clearly  after 2 years it's not working for Hall. 

That’s a little backwards from reality.  The D has done a good job of getting off the field and even turning the ball over on the other teams side of the field in the first half of the last two games which were terrible losses.  Ottawa game fell apart late in the second quarter when offense continuously couldn’t get a first down and kept sending the D out and pretty much the same situation I’m Calgary just in the second half.  I mean both games they handed the offense the ball at basically midfield off a turnover, 8-7 game vs Ottawa, believe it was 9-3 in Calgary and out of those possessions we got a FG in Calgary.  Those need to be TDs if we expect to beat good teams.

The offense is barely moving and rarely scoring touchdowns until the game is over.  This game is offense, it’s basically illegal to play D outside of rushing the passer which is something our team is not very consistently good at, and even then you’re likely to take a penalty for how the QB gets tackled.  That win streak against the East was all D, Harris and Demski.

14 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Except they haven't struggled the last few seasons.... over .500 and winning as much as anyone not named calgary... unless this is a case of "if you're not first, you're last"

Cause to me those rookies turned the franchise around and put it on pretty stable ground, to the point where .500 is unacceptable.

Aren’t you the guy who keeps saying they had all these great Americans from Joe Mack’s pipeline? 

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

That’s a little backwards from reality.  The D has done a good job of getting off the field and even turning the ball over on the other teams side of the field in the first half of the last two games which were terrible losses.  Ottawa game fell apart late in the second quarter when offense continuously couldn’t get a first down and kept sending the D out and pretty much the same situation I’m Calgary just in the second half.  I mean both games they handed the offense the ball at basically midfield off a turnover, 8-7 game vs Ottawa, believe it was 9-3 in Calgary and out of those possessions we got a FG in Calgary.  Those need to be TDs if we expect to beat good teams.

The offense is barely moving and rarely scoring touchdowns until the game is over.  This game is offense, it’s basically illegal to play D outside of rushing the passer which is something our team is not very consistently good at, and even then you’re likely to take a penalty for how the QB gets tackled.  That win streak against the East was all D, Harris and Demski.

this is spot on.... the D can only be expected to do so much, and when they're being trotted out there after only a few minutes of rest because of 'ANOTHER WINNIPEG.... 2 AND OUT!'  they're eventually going to wear down.   The secondary has been pretty bad, and I really think there needs to be a change in scheme if these 400+ yard games continue.   The Richie Hall bend but don't break seems to do okay when the D gets rest... but there's gotta be some tweaks they can make (possibly adding personel) to this secondary.  They're going to get torched the second half of the season with the QBs were going to be playing.

57 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

this is spot on.... the D can only be expected to do so much, and when they're being trotted out there after only a few minutes of rest because of 'ANOTHER WINNIPEG.... 2 AND OUT!'  they're eventually going to wear down.   The secondary has been pretty bad, and I really think there needs to be a change in scheme if these 400+ yard games continue.   The Richie Hall bend but don't break seems to do okay when the D gets rest... but there's gotta be some tweaks they can make (possibly adding personel) to this secondary.  They're going to get torched the second half of the season with the QBs were going to be playing.

Definitely the offense two and outs hurt the defense. But, I’m not quite getting the Bombers version of the bend-don’t-break defense. Usually that’s some variation of a Cover 2 defense, where you shouldn’t get burned deep, but the middle of the field 10 – 15 yards is vulnerable. But, to address that vulnerable area, shouldn’t your middle linebacker be dropping back in that zone? Or safety stepping up? Our scheme seems like Bighill often plays in the box or close to. And Loffler is awol. Bighill is super talented and can drop into coverage. He’s the anti-Hurl. Use him better Coach Hall!

7 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Hell yeah. Hall must go.  But will he? You know O'Shea what he's like. 

Hall's on the final year of his contract. Do you see the organization offering him another? I sure as hell don't.

And it's not about O'Shea or that "blind loyalty" narrative.

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Aren’t you the guy who keeps saying they had all these great Americans from Joe Mack’s pipeline? 

yeah and I wish Walters was anywhere close to as good with the american scouting, but he's provided stability, especially with his drafting and it has set the team up for long term success because of it.