Nice clean game, did not force plays, put together a big time consuming, point scoring drive when we needed it in the 4th quarter, and delivered on the kill shot on 2nd and long to ice the game. Played with focus and fire. Thanks for settling things down with the team and this bi-polar fan base, good job (and you throw a spiral a million times better than Johnny "Quack quack" Football). Go get 'em next week!

6 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

4 incompletions in a game is not impressive? Again, hard to put up big numbers when u only need 40 yards...and for a solid quarter you're in run the clock territory. 

Throwing 20 times is pretty 'not impressive'...  way too many double clutches and then scramble for 2-3 yards

That being said Reilly was worse.

Better then a 12 yard sack loss 

25 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Throwing 20 times is pretty 'not impressive'...  way too many double clutches and then scramble for 2-3 yards

That being said Reilly was 

Who cares how many times he threw? Im sure Edmonton's defence is really proud they gave up less then 200 yards passing....lol....He didnt need a lot of yards for the same reason he didnt need a lot of throws. Short fields, big leads, scored points.

Compare yesterday's stats to the east semi....at the end of the day, no one cares how many yards you put up. The 1 and only thing that matters is getting a W.

Edited September 30, 20187 yr by Bigblue204

An 80% comp. rate is nice, even if it's only based on 16 completions. The offense had a short field all night long, so Nichols and co. didn't necessarily have to do much. More points would've been good but I can see why the approach on offense was pretty vanilla.

A win is a win is a win. And in this case (on the road against a division rival), it was much needed.

This sort of win is intoxicating, and not to take anything away from a very good effort by the Big Blue, but the whole Eskie team looked discombobulated. Anyways...onwards.

In a game that we dominated from start to finish, is it any wonder that they didn't get fancy on offence? Steady, one turnover, and dominated time of possession. It wasn't fancy but, geez, they didn't give the Esks any opportunities to flip the field or to score quick points. 

It was a great game by Nichols. 

On 2018-10-01 at 9:01 AM, JCon said:

In a game that we dominated from start to finish, is it any wonder that they didn't get fancy on offence? Steady, one turnover, and dominated time of possession. It wasn't fancy but, geez, they didn't give the Esks any opportunities to flip the field or to score quick points. 

It was a great game by Nichols. 

The defense played a great game.  Nichols played a safe game and it was far from spectacular but it's all that was needed on Saturday.

Let me just ask a simple question and this isn't about Nichols per se but was there *anything* about the way the offense played that made you believe that if Edmonton started to roll and started to score quickly that we'd be able to dial it up, change gears and keep pace?  If you're honest with yourself, the answer is no.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

The defense played a great game.  Nichols played a safe game and it was far from spectacular but it's all that was needed on Saturday.

Let me just ask a simple question and this isn't about Nichols per se but, was there *anything* about the way the offense played that made you believe that if Edmonton started to roll and started to score quickly that we'd be able to dial it up, change gears and keep pace?  If you're honest with yourself, the answer is no.

Do you think if that was the case, they would be calling the same plays that were called? You said it yourself, they were playing it safe for a large part of that game. Had they needed to press...say they were stuck in their own endzone and needed a drive to flip the field, do you think they could have? Oh wait...

Field position really helped as far as the offense's lack of production on Saturday. Offensively, the game was managed well enough, particularly by Nichols. But there was nothing great about that performance, IMO. It was more or less the bare minimum to get the job done.

The offense is a bit of a mess and that phase needs to improve down the stretch.

31 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Do you think if that was the case, they would be calling the same plays that were called? You said it yourself, they were playing it safe for a large part of that game. Had they needed to press...say they were stuck in their own endzone and needed a drive to flip the field, do you think they could have? Oh wait...

No. I said Nichols played it safe. LaPolice's play calling is always going to be what it is (generally conservative).

And which drive are you referring to .. the one that lasted four plays before we had to punt?  We started near midfield or on Edmonton's side of the field most of the game.  The one long drive that DID start on our 34 ended in a Nichols turnover and took points OFF the board for us (drives and starting positions: E28, W6 (four plays, PUNT), E54, W55, W53, W53. E26, W20 (2 and out), E25, W34 (2 and out), W34 (Interception), E41.)

By and large, the offense didn't do a whole helluva lot. They operated on a short field and were largely unimpressive when forced to come out of their own end.

55 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

The defense played a great game.  Nichols played a safe game and it was far from spectacular but it's all that was needed on Saturday.

Let me just ask a simple question and this isn't about Nichols per se but, was there *anything* about the way the offense played that made you believe that if Edmonton started to roll and started to score quickly that we'd be able to dial it up, change gears and keep pace?  If you're honest with yourself, the answer is no.

Good question. I say it was a great game for Nichols because it was safe. He didn't put anything into jeopardy. 

So, let's say the Esks start the second half, drive the ball and score a TD. Could Nichols turn it up a bit? 

I'm not certain but I think Lapo would have tried to press more and look for opportunities to push the ball downfield.  

Given Nichols had success last week pushing the ball downfield, I think Nichols could have scored 20 points in the second half, as opposed to 13. 

I can't prove it, obviously, but I think they could have changed gears. But they didn't need to. 

 

If only Streveler could have started, we likely would have put up 100 points.

 

😏

6 minutes ago, White Out said:

If only Streveler could have started, we likely would have put up 100 points.

 

😏

In the first half. 

56 minutes ago, JCon said:

In the first half. 

Did he only play the first quarter?

Watching Matt in the last while.....he really seems to be hesitant and getting through his progressions, in the pocket....more slowly.  Just does not look as decisive, at times....

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by do or die

1 hour ago, JCon said:

Given Nichols had success last week pushing the ball downfield, I think Nichols could have scored 20 points in the second half, as opposed to 13. 

I can't prove it, obviously, but I think they could have changed gears. But they didn't need to. 

 

Nichols hasn't had success pushing the ball downfield all season... what makes you think he could just flip the switch and kick it in to gear??

His best play all game was the pump fake on a quick hook route (Dressler) making the DB bite while Adams blew by him.  They need to create more scenarios like this, and not just gun it up the middle, or throw 3 yard passes to receivers who aren't moving.

The good thing is... there's signs of life, and that things can be improved.  But to say Nichols had a stellar game is really just accepting mediocrity and being blinded by the almighty W.

1 minute ago, trueBlue83 said:

Nichols hasn't had success pushing the ball downfield all season... what makes you think he could just flip the switch and kick it in to gear??

His best play all game was the pump fake on a quick hook route (Dressler) making the DB bite while Adams blew by him.  They need to create more scenarios like this, and not just gun it up the middle, or throw 3 yard passes to receivers who aren't moving.

The good thing is... there's signs of life, and that things can be improved.  But to say Nichols had a stellar game is really just accepting mediocrity and being blinded by the almighty W.

He did last week, as I said. 

11 minutes ago, JCon said:

He did last week, as I said. 

Ah yes... against Montreal.   He had 2 passes I would consider "long", 1 of which was right near the end of the game when Montreal was probably expecting a "run the clock out" running play.  Take away that play, and he's just a touch over 200 yds on the day.

Collaros just put up almost 400 yards passing on that same defence.

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by trueBlue83

1 minute ago, trueBlue83 said:

Ah yes... against Montreal.   He had 2 passes I would consider "long", 1 of which was right near the end of the game when Montreal was probably expecting a "run the clock out" running play.   Collaros just put up almost 400 yards passing on that same defence.

And, he still did it last week. 

I didn't know that we put the Esks D above Als. 

27 minutes ago, do or die said:

Watching Matt in the last while.....he really seems to be hesitant and getting through his progressions, in the pocket....more slowly.  Just does not look as decisive, at times....

It's frustrating because he does have guys wide open... lots of blame on the receivers and LaPo....  I don't see how anyone outside of Nichols can be blamed for this.      

Streveler in his brief times on the field was way more decisive...

During the game, there were a couple of instances where Nichols appeared to be close to getting hit and he appeared to freeze- indecisive about what to do. It looked like he was terrified about getting hit. Sure hope he works his way out of this real soon.

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by Tracker

Nichols did the minimum, which was the right thing to do when your team's D is dominating field position. The one thing he couldn't do was force the ball causing turnovers and he did that.

When the field tipped into our end and we were in our endzone Nichols stepped up and hit wolitarsky for a 25 yard completion in a tight window. THAT was a TSN turning point, imo.

Count me in the group that was satisfied with Nichols performance.

 

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by Dr Zaius

The interior of the o-line is getting pushed back into Nichols on more than a few occasions. He hasn't been able to step up in the pocket, at least that is what I have been noticing, making him look almost panicked at times. 

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by pigseye
because

59 minutes ago, JCon said:

And, he still did it last week. 

I didn't know that we put the Esks D above Als. 

Moving the ball downfield he has not....  5 - 2 and outs, 4 drives of 4 plays where we started with outstanding field position and settled for FG's, 2 sustained drives (1 of which ended in an INT) and 1 drive of 8 plays, at the end of the game, all of which were running plays.

EDIT:  combining the short drives, 9 out of 12 (75%) were drives in which we barely moved the ball.  How this can be seen as successful offensive production in my mind makes no sense.  again... blinded by the Win.

Edited October 1, 20187 yr by trueBlue83

24 minutes ago, Dr Zaius said:

When the field tipped into our end and we were in our endzone Nichols stepped up and hit wolitarsky for a 25 yard completion in a tight window. THAT was a TSN turning point, imo.

he also hit Petterman with a nice one, and Darvin on a nice fake out route.... but connecting on 3 of these plays a game to me isn't enough to say he's 100% our guy moving forward, and the job is his no questions asked.  I have no doubt that this is the way it's going to be the rest of the season.  But if the mediocre play continues, and it's not an open competition for the starting job next season, I question the coaching's ability to assess productive QB play.

If Matt helps win us a Grey Cup, sure... all will be forgotten and there's no way he loses his starting spot next year.  But if the team does well down here down the stretch and it's in spite of strong QB play... what's the saying 'if you're not continually looking to improve, you're going to get left behind'  ??