...........No kidding June, we all feel like that..

The last few games for the Bombers and for the Lions.

At stake - the crossover for playoffs...and a few jobs.

Remaining games for both teams and possible outcomes: (my best guesses)

BC Lions 6-6

At Hamilton - loss 6-7

Toronto - win 7-7

At Calgary- loss 7-8

Edmonton- win 8-8

At Saskatchewan- loss 8-9

Calgary- loss 8-10

👁‍🗨 A lot depends on the play of Jennings. He played very well in a loss-turned-win in the last game.

Wpg. Blue Bombers 6-7

At Edmonton - win 7-7 we have to beat Edmonton once, might as well be the 1st game

At Ottawa- loss 7-8 although it depends on which Trevor Harris shows up.

Saskatchewan- win 8-8

Calgary - loss 8-9

At Edmonton- loss 8-10 

 

👁‍🗨 Injuries recently sustained may determine our final positioning and the fate of out Coaching staff...

Edmonton holds the key for both the Lions and Bombers..

Edited October 28, 20187 yr by Mr Dee

8 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

Which international do they sit to start Flanders?

Good question. I'm not sure. I'm going to think about that though. 

9 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

Pretty much never unless you have no "proven" starter. 

My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up.

It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven.

It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo. 

3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up.

It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven.

It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo. 

I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever.

15 minutes ago, Dragon37 said:

I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever.

Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind.

Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if  it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios.

35 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind.

Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if  it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios.

They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. 

18 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Whatever happened to the days that you could use both QB's strategically without fear of melting a snowflake.

I don;t think Nichols' ego is the problem here... it would be O'Shea's unwillingness to use his second QB more...

also, there was never really a time when this was a common practice... a few teams have tinkered with it over the years, but that's about it..

6 hours ago, JCon said:

Good question. I'm not sure. I'm going to think about that though. 

I'd sit Fogg...  but I don't think you can slot Flanders in - really think you have to run with Lafrance and Augustine 

If you start Flanders and try to run with 3 NI REC, you basically have no backup if someone's injured

1 hour ago, JCon said:

They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. 

I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view.

20 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view.

I thought you were suggesting that the Bombers were not doing this. 

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

I thought you were suggesting that the Bombers were not doing this. 

Nope. Just a hope they are considering working it into their gameplan a bit more than they do.

I'd much rather see a return of the no-huddle offense than a QB tandem.

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

I'd much rather see a return of the no-huddle offense than a QB tandem.

No huddle offence and the QB tandem.....

1 hour ago, NorthernSkunk said:

No huddle offence and the QB tandem.....

The problem with the no huddle offence is the slow ass Refs. Blow the play in ya jackass!

....for the last spot in the playoffs.  It's a 6 week playoff series to see who gets the Crossover nod.

I've seen one prediction where they think the Lions will end up 9-9 and make it into the playoffs.  What have you seen?

LIONS....TIGERS....AND BLUE BOMBERS.....OH MY!
 

 

There is already a thread on this topic..

Not to mention it's  not just the lions and bombers. **** is close enough the only team free and clear in the west is calgary.

Merged.

B.C. has done their part, losing their 7th game, putting the Bombers temporary in 4th spot.

Now it’s time for the Bombers to give Edmonton their 7th loss. Then, I can change the title of the thread..

Time to remember who all said Edmonton was beatable... and time to see how many trolls DON'T show up this week... 

7 losses across the playoff board. 

And, we played our way back in the race. 

Can we get Saskatchewan involved now? 😁

2 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Time to remember who all said Edmonton was beatable... and time to see how many trolls DON'T show up this week... 

It was always about if the Winnipeg D showed up. I thought it would come down to our secondary but Richie found a way to dial up the pressure. 

If the season ended today we'd play Sask in the West Semi and have the 2nd and 3rd overall picks in the 2019 Draft.

4 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

If the season ended today we'd play Sask in the West Semi and have the 2nd and 3rd overall picks in the 2019 Draft.

Can you elaborate on the 2nd and 3rd overall picks? Is there a trade or two I missed?

44 minutes ago, blueingreenland said:

Can you elaborate on the 2nd and 3rd overall picks? Is there a trade or two I missed?

Montreal has no 1st rounder (used in a supplemental draft) so it would Toronto then us at #2 (via trade w/ BC at the last draft).

It gets complicated from there with 3 teams at 7-7 but if my understanding is correct, we'd actually pick 4th.  Hamilton picks 5th as they win the tiebreaker against both teams.  We win the tiebreaker with Edmonton due to points so they would pick 3rd.