25 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

But with EJ, for some reason, change of scenery (ie anything but Montreal) might ignite him. Never really got that feeling with Bowman.

This is the atypical argument of change for the sake of change. Also - why would you gamble on him? We've got three games left - time for the team to gel and gear up for the playoffs, if you're bringing someone in you're desperate.

2 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

This is the atypical argument of change for the sake of change. Also - why would you gamble on him? We've got three games left - time for the team to gel and gear up for the playoffs, if you're bringing someone in you're desperate.

I think you mean archetypal.   I'm not sure that any of the names bandied about would have actually improved the team in any measurable way.  The only thing that a trade would have done is to satisfy the "they have to do something" itch that so many here seem to need to have scratched. 

I don't see any spots on the roster in dire need of upgrading but it would have been nice to pick up a receiver for some depth.  We've seen the offence struggle without Dressler.  Ultimately I still believe this roster is capable of winning the Grey Cup if they can stay healthy down the stretch.

Dave had it right - we have no depth. 

 

Also my mind is blown on the stance Floyd is taking on this. What world have I walked into? 

Never seen so many depth charges since that U-571 movie.

48 minutes ago, Mike said:

Dave had it right - we have no depth. 

Also my mind is blown on the stance Floyd is taking on this. What world have I walked into? 

One where I finally like the regime... and the coach.

You only knew the Mike Kelly-Joe Mack era Floyd...  that was back when you kind of blindly defended everything like I'm doing now...

6 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

To be fair, Nichols put up a lot of those numbers in garbage time when we were down by a bunch. He was also playing hurt though.

Uh, not in the 2016 WSF. Last year's WSF? Perhaps. But just like a year prior, it was the defense that collapsed and gave up a lead in either game.

1 hour ago, TheBandit said:

Shouldn’t be relying on your running back as a full time reciever. 

For sure man... no RB has ever been used for screen passes or as the first check down in the CFL...  pfft what was I thinking...

9 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Nichols wasn’t the reason we lost 2 playoff games with him at QB;

2017 - 35 out of 48 attempts. 72.92% for 371 yards 3 TDs 0 ints.

2016 - 26 of 40 attempts  65% for 390 yards 2 TDs 0 ints 

Those numbers are very good.

Here’s the tricky thing about stats, his 2017 numbers are arguably better but the eye test will tell you that he played much better in 2016. 

The majority of those 2017 numbers were racked up after Edmonton already beat us to the curb. Of course, we had a pathetic plethora of receivers out there. 

I’m not sure if he was available, but Amarnati Edwards would’ve looked great on this team. 

Better yet, we should’ve just signed Chris Matthews. 

14 hours ago, Floyd said:

So Andrew Harris is not a vet leadership presence...?

Not a receiver. 

13 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

This is the atypical argument of change for the sake of change. Also - why would you gamble on him? We've got three games left - time for the team to gel and gear up for the playoffs, if you're bringing someone in you're desperate.

Did I say sign him. That's why I said 'might' and no I didn't suggest change for the sake of change. You must of misinterpreted my post. With most things in life personally and professionally, we ask this question: 'Is there room for improvement?'. If you are being honest with yourself, the answer is usually yes. If the Bombers went through the progression of looking in depth at what was available to make their club better and came out the end saying nope stand pat. Fine. If they didn't and just said 'Stand Pat' I don't agree with that approach.

Because most of us don't work for the organization we don't  know what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to what their continuous improvement approach is

10 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Did I say sign him. That's why I said 'might' and no I didn't suggest change for the sake of change. You must of misinterpreted my post. With most things in life personally and professionally, we ask this question: 'Is there room for improvement?'. If you are being honest with yourself, the answer is usually yes. If the Bombers went through the progression of looking in depth at what was available to make their club better and came out the end saying nope stand pat. Fine. If they didn't and just said 'Stand Pat' I don't agree with that approach.

Because most of us don't work for the organization we don't  know what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to what their continuous improvement approach is

By definition, in order for it to be a trade, we'd have to give something back to Montreal. Could Jackson improve the team? Maybe. But this isn't the time of year to be rolling the dice with an unproven player. Also, don't you think that might cause some dissent among the ranks?

As for the internal workings within the Bombers - absolutely we're kept in the dark. For all we know they may have tried to make some of the trades suggested in this thread, but we'll never really know.

When Bighill notices the kind of character player that the Blue are bringing in, and he’s mentioned it, you just know that that attribute is being looked at by this crew, and not always readily available.

11 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Did I say sign him. That's why I said 'might' and no I didn't suggest change for the sake of change. You must of misinterpreted my post. With most things in life personally and professionally, we ask this question: 'Is there room for improvement?'. If you are being honest with yourself, the answer is usually yes. If the Bombers went through the progression of looking in depth at what was available to make their club better and came out the end saying nope stand pat. Fine. If they didn't and just said 'Stand Pat' I don't agree with that approach.

Because most of us don't work for the organization we don't  know what goes on behind the scenes when it comes to what their continuous improvement approach is

With this I agree most strenuously. Even if we were to win the cup, I'd be looking for the team to keep improving, learning, developing. That includes kicking the tires on new players, coaches, scouts, trainers.

I do believe they tried to improve the team and decided the risk wasn't worth messing with the chemistry. If the losing skid had continued I think something may have happened. As I said in another thread, we have proven capable of beating every team in the league so far, except for Sask and Cal. Guess who's up next?