The schmoes are in town.   Bomber home opener.    Going to be Sunny and 26 for kickoff.    Lets go get another win!

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Without Whitehead, we lose.

Then man am I glad we have him. 

14 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The first TD was a good pass. The second TD was all Lucky.

And some good blocking, especially early in the play

Nichols also got it out of his hands in almost no time and into Whitehead's hands.

So quick that he did it without using the laces.

1 hour ago, Colin Unger said:

Then man am I glad we have him. 

There is a rumour that Whitehead is sooo fast that he can turn off the light and be in bed asleep before the room gets dark.

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

There is a rumour that Whitehead is sooo fast that he can turn off the light and be in bed asleep before the room gets dark.

 

Willie Jefferson had a much better game than people think 

We were lucky to win because of lucky?? Last I checked he was a team member on the Bombers..no?

And if he disnt score the second td on the 41 yard play..who says that means we weren't gonna score?

The first td was a perfect deep shot.  Second was out fast and on target..is it Nichols fault Lucky took it to the house and negated any additional completions and yards he may have gotten to fatten his stats?

The TD to Harris too..perfectly executed play and toss..again..I guess that doesnt count either I guess...this argument is getting real dumb considering the winning percentage of team behind Nichols.. and sure not all wins on a QBs stat line should be totally a result of him..and same can be said about losses...and right now if out QB is giving us a chance to win while not playing reckless and doing things to constantly result in losses..then what's the argument?? Shuddop already 

Willie Jefferson's film in the 2nd half is elite 

18 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The first TD was a good pass. The second TD was all Lucky.

Yeah, I guess those two passes just magically wound up in his hands. Why even roster a QB?

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Yeah, I guess those two passes just magically wound up in his hands. Why even roster a QB?

It's not magic. Any competent QB makes those passes.

19 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

It's not magic. Any competent QB makes those passes.

no they don't...why even say things like that?

Any "game manager" type QB would make those throws.  

15 hours ago, Geebrr said:

Willie Jefferson had a much better game than people think 

2nd half was good

16 minutes ago, do or die said:

2nd half was good

Very good. 

When they weren't running away from him they were rolling away from him, and, or using double/triple teams. Plus he got his hands up and disrupted a few key throws.

He is going to get better and better 

1 hour ago, Booch said:

no they don't...why even say things like that?

Of course they do. Why even argue about it?

On 2019-06-29 at 9:42 AM, TBURGESS said:

Can we win a GC with Nichols? As long as the rest of the team plays great, yes. If we have to rely on Nichols to do something special, no.

Tom Burgess wasn't a great QB who won a GC. He was an average, journeyman, game manager on a great team that won the GC.

4 hours ago, Booch said:

no they don't...why even say things like that?

Because we all know who said it.

On 2019-07-01 at 12:04 PM, TBURGESS said:

Without Whitehead, we lose.

Can you send me some of whatever it is that you take, that allows you to see into different dimensions?

Next you're going to say, without a football, we wouldn't be playing football. Or something magical like, Without IGF the Bombers would be playing somewhere else. Your insight is refreshing and delightful. 

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

Can you send me some of whatever it is that you take, that allows you to see into different dimensions?

Next you're going to say, without a football, we wouldn't be playing football. Or something magical like, Without IGF the Bombers would be playing somewhere else. Your insight is refreshing and delightful. 

Maybe you prefer... Without Lucky we lose. Without Nichols we still win. Better?

Just now, TBURGESS said:

Maybe you prefer... Without Lucky we lose. Without Nichols we still win. Better?

Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument. 

34 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument. 

Your stoic approach is preferred. 

50 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Maybe you prefer... Without Lucky we lose. Without Nichols we still win. Better?

I'm amazed you're still a fan of this team the way you blow farts out your ass.

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm amazed you're still a fan of this team the way you blow farts out your ass.

WHAT? He's a FAN of this team? There's no way!

45 minutes ago, J5V said:

WHAT? He's a FAN of this team? There's no way!

Those weren't farts- his butt was blowing kisses.

16 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument. 

What a crock of ____. No way to prove either statement, but you're statement is way out to lunch and mine was reasonable.