Jump to content

BOMBERS -Playoffs - ESKIMOS Out


Mr Dee

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....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!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...