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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

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. 

Zero guarantees of long term success in the CFL..... way too many variables 

22 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Zero guarantees of long term success in the CFL..... way too many variables 

No but the way you do have long term success is a steady stream of quality Canadian players and a quarterback. Now we know we've done well with the drafting and Canadians, so we will see how Streveler develops and if they can bring in any more qbs. But looking at things now it looks like they've done a good job laying the foundation for long term success.

Now it's easy to **** all that up by prematurely firing people because of impatience, but that would never happen in Winnipeg right? Right?

Just now, 17to85 said:

Now it's easy to **** all that up by prematurely firing people because of impatience, but that would never happen in Winnipeg right? Right?

Would you say its premature after five years?

I'm a Walters supporter... but his draft is not as strong as it once was... and the Bowman/Durant moves this year - while letting Bond and Heath leave...

I'm just saying there's more of an argument against Walters now than there was even two years ago

8 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'm a Walters supporter... but his draft is not as strong as it once was... and the Bowman/Durant moves this year - while letting Bond and Heath leave...

Why is the draft not as strong as it once was? We got depth on the OL, depth at receiver, enough Canadians scattered on the D, good special teams guys and he's sitting on 2 first round draft picks this year... Durant was a douchebag, not Walters fault, Bond hasn't been missed and neither has bowman or Heath. So what's the issue? 

I'd say it's premature because we're talking about this **** when we are sitting at .500 on the season after back to back double digit win seasons. Like seriously people this is insanity. Do we not remember how shitty it was going from Ritchie to Daley? Or Berry to Kelly? Hell even Lapo to Burke was a **** show. Don't **** with things now, it is the complete wrong time to do it. 

The Bowman signing is the only real "mistake" of those four. Durant's a piece of garbage and the team misses neither Heath nor Bond.

27 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'm just saying there's more of an argument against Walters now than there was even two years ago

On the flip side... there's more of an argument for Walters now than there was two years ago.

Time is funny that way. 

26 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Why is the draft not as strong as it once was? We got depth on the OL, depth at receiver, enough Canadians scattered on the D, good special teams guys and he's sitting on 2 first round draft picks this year... Durant was a douchebag, not Walters fault, Bond hasn't been missed and neither has bowman or Heath. So what's the issue? 

I'd say it's premature because we're talking about this **** when we are sitting at .500 on the season after back to back double digit win seasons. Like seriously people this is insanity. Do we not remember how shitty it was going from Ritchie to Daley? Or Berry to Kelly? Hell even Lapo to Burke was a **** show. Don't **** with things now, it is the complete wrong time to do it. 

Walters isn't perfect, but, overall he's not the problem (I know, we can't find American receivers ...). He's upgraded the overall talent of this team in his time. The other area I have to give Walters credit for is he's pretty good about taking decisive action when things aren't working out. Trading Willy, Bowman, cutting Ekakitie (which took some stones to admit you messed up a first overall pick). The Hall love-in confuses me, but, I think that bodes well for future moves that need to happen, depending on the rest of the year. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

No but the way you do have long term success is a steady stream of quality Canadian players and a quarterback. Now we know we've done well with the drafting and Canadians, so we will see how Streveler develops and if they can bring in any more qbs. But looking at things now it looks like they've done a good job laying the foundation for long term success.

I like the way they made absolutely sure the OL was solid.  When they didn't have a Canadian for left guard, the used an American (Bond) who was the best guard in the CFL, and made the ratio work elsewhere.  

23 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

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.

Technically not true, good ole Saskatchewan made the playoffs for a stretch of ten straight years from 1967 to 1976 inclusive, without winning a Grey Cup. Oh by the way, they are the only team currently active that has made the playoff that many years consecutively and failed. Should be noted though that they did win it in 1966, so the point is kind of moot.