It might be just a select few posters I'm seeing do this, but man some of these criticisms just get so old.  Sure it's all warranted and good to rip the guy when he throws bad passes or makes a bad decision, but now it's rip him even when he completes a deep ball to Matthews that was called back, or the one to Whitehead that stood?  I mean, what is this?  Some Nichols witch hunt where he can do no right or something?

I'm not going to pretend that Nichols was all good, but on series's where our offense was off he wasn't the only one who made the errors.  Andrew Harris was not good either outside his TD catch and had as much to do with the struggles, as did Fenner on defense, Adams and some of Lapo's play calls that 17to85 talks about.

Nichols isn't above criticism and he doesn't necessarily deserve heaps of praise on his head.  But it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that he single-handedly wins or loses games.  That's not how Mike O'Shea's team works.

And his passing yards are meaningless.  You can rack up yards all day against bend but don't break defenses, but if you don't get TDs out of them, you are overrated.  Yup, I said it.  Passing yards are completely meaningless.

Edited June 29, 20196 yr by USABomberfan

5 hours ago, Firekid said:

Some guys just have a "chip" on their shoulder and act like stinky old "skunks" when it come to Matt Nichols.

I don't trust Mattys confidence.  He needs way too much protection compared to QB's who have won a cup in my opinion.  I do hope he pulls it off if that's the plan.  Bombers first. 

2 hours ago, Firekid said:

Wait and see. Come on....Yourface, open your mind a little.

We have been waiting. 

 

Nichols is a good QB cuz wins? 🤣 That's the dumbest thing I've read all week and yet it gets repeated over and over and over and over again. Nichols played well in week 1 for 3 out of 4 quarters. He didn't play well last night. He was simply the QB of record when we won.

We are 2-0 and that's good. Doesn't mean the same thing as Nichols was good.

Just now, TBURGESS said:

Nichols is a good QB cuz wins? 🤣 That's the dumbest thing I've read all week and yet it gets repeated over and over and over and over again. Nichols played well in week 1 for 3 out of 4 quarters. He didn't play well last night. He was simply the QB of record when we won.

We are 2-0 and that's good. Doesn't mean the same thing as Nichols was good.

He's good because the D held repeatedly, even when the O couldn't get 1-2 first downs to kill the clock at the end of each half and turned the ball over at the end of each half handing Edmonton the ball in our territory.

Half those FG's go for TD's and we're just a team with a QB who can't make enough plays to win, or more likely we should fire the DC and cut all the DB's.  Funny how that works.

4 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

He's good because the D held repeatedly, even when the O couldn't get 1-2 first downs to kill the clock at the end of each half and turned the ball over at the end of each half handing Edmonton the ball in our territory.

Half those FG's go for TD's and we're just a team with a QB who can't make enough plays to win, or more likely we should fire the DC and cut all the DB's.  Funny how that works.

And Nichols throws TDs.  Nuff said

2 hours ago, Booch said:

first place...2-0...chill out on how we got there..just stay there and continue on

Booch I think that the problem is that people are afraid that the CFL might do an audit on the game stats of our two games and when they see that we didn't pass for more than 300 yards each time, they'll pull the wins.  We can't just rely on points scored.

I thought Matt Nichols had a good enough game for what we need from him in the first game. I did not think he had a good enough game last night.

Does anyone have any idea of how much we're saving and able to deploy elsewhere when we compare his salary to that of BLM, Riley or Harris?

Edited June 28, 20196 yr by Fraser
Spelling

1 hour ago, USABomberfan said:

Trevor Harris, a ton of passing yards ... No TDs

Matt N ... Not a ton of passing yards but 3 TDs

 

Yup I think I know who I'm taking there

 

Passing yards are meaningless

So much more then simply pointing out to the TD totals also though.  In the last 5 minutes everyone on Edmonton was dropping passes that were hitting them in the mitts.  Many more factors then passing and TDs.   

The old eye test is what I think is the best and Nichols struggled mightily and went stone cold way to often.   

If our *defense* comes back down to earth we will be a middle of the pack team.   

I only wish the coaches had given Streveler at least a few series after Nichols was clearly playing like crap.  

delete

Edited June 28, 20196 yr by Brandon

12 minutes ago, Fraser said:

I thought Matt Nichols had a good enough game for what we need from him in the first game. I did not think he had a good enough game last night.

Does anyone have any idea of how much we're saving and able to deploy elsewhere when we compare his salary to that of BLM, Riley or Harris?

About $300,000 on BLM/Reilly, so that's like Willie Jefferson and Matthews essentially.

7 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I only wish the coaches had given Streveler at least a few series after Nichols was clearly playing like crap.  

This. Streveler is too good an athlete to not be utilized more and I'm somewhat surprised that Lapo doesn't work him in more.

To me, Streveler is like a cross between Mike Reilly and Jeremiah Masoli. Tough and robust, strong arm, strong legs, lots of fire. I'd love to see what Streveler could do with the tools present on this version of our Bomber team. 

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

He's good because the D held repeatedly, even when the O couldn't get 1-2 first downs to kill the clock at the end of each half and turned the ball over at the end of each half handing Edmonton the ball in our territory.

Half those FG's go for TD's and we're just a team with a QB who can't make enough plays to win, or more likely we should fire the DC and cut all the DB's.  Funny how that works.

RIDICULOUS!!

Maybe when analyzing the play of Nichols we should consider the following:

Nichols first time under fire was game 1

The interior of the Oline is still kind of soft. Nichols ate a lot of balls last night because the defence had come through.

This was his first game with Matthews and second with Whitehead. 

Nichols is just a lowly private on that field. He does as he's told. Play selection has a lot to do with how the game rolls along.

Edmonton has a good Dline.

Why don't we wait until after the next two games to see how things work out.   He did take us to the Western Finals.

6 hours ago, Firekid said:

Wait and see. Come on....Yourface, open your mind a little.

Now that’s in your face..

11 hours ago, Booch said:

YEAH there are some things he needs to maybe get better at, and maybe at times show some bravado and take control of a game and go off and show he can be a difference maker...if he has to

 

That being said he doesn't seem to have to in this offence...he plays in a way where he gives us a chance to win and score points, and doesn't...or rarely make, or force stupid plays or chances to hinder us winning...and I am totally cool with that

Also is it his fault our run game is so successful and a big reason we win, and our offence revolves around it?..no it's not, but history shows most successful teams are predicated on a strong ground game and strong defense, and can win with Nichols like QB'ing

Heck our team history alone proves that and our last 2-3 cups were won with game manager QB's basically, and one (Salsbury) who for a lack of a better term...sucked

We won with Tom Burgess in 1990.

6 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols is a good QB cuz wins? 🤣 That's the dumbest thing I've read all week and yet it gets repeated over and over and over and over again. Nichols played well in week 1 for 3 out of 4 quarters. He didn't play well last night. He was simply the QB of record when we won.

We are 2-0 and that's good. Doesn't mean the same thing as Nichols was good.

Qbs are judged by wins. Not every one is pretty.  But you wouldn't be you without bitching about something after a win.

Some people would have us go back to Drew Willy because he would put up 200 yards in garbage time. Nice, nice, 300 yard game, Willy is a good QB!

The differences in fan viewpoints in my opinion are just linked to how we interpret the process leading to a result. You can get a good result from a bad process, which is what happened on Thursday, when we are discussing Nichols.

Wins are always good, but how you get there matters.  Nichols had a few really great throws and then a bunch of awful ones. If Lucky Whitehead isn't the fastest person on the field, the Bombers likely lose and Nichols' stats are even worse. The idea that Nichols and Whitehead share equal credit for Whitehead's second TD, for example, is why advanced stats have made such a big impact in the NFL - we know which player deserved more credit on that play.  

In a league where offensive success is so closely linked to victory, it should be concerning that Nichols and the offense struggled to find consistency. I don't think this is really that unreasonable. You should be able to both praise and criticize the team after wins and losses, not just saving the positivity for good outcomes and negativity for bad ones.

I don’t look at yards as the main measuring stick for QB success.  I look at how how well the offence moves the ball using both the run and the pass. In BC Nichols was very effective at sustaining drives and completing passes when he needed to. Against Edmonton he started out reasonably well but regressed as the game wore on.  While he wasn’t terrible on Thursday I don’t consider his play very effective at all, as a couple of big plays by Whitehead padded his stats.  Playing like he did against Edmonton will hurt the Bombers going forward, and he has to be better.  Can’t rely on the defence to bail the team out every game.

15 hours ago, USABomberfan said:

Yes, plus how does being 2-0 and 1st in the West make us mediocre I wonder?

I'm talking strictly about Nichols play over the last 1  1/2 + seasons now.... not team play.  There is nothing wrong with the team play.  I just feel that this team isn't going to reach it's full potential with Nichols behind centre if he continues the way he's been playing the last 30 or so games.

12 hours ago, LeBird said:

Why don't we wait until after the next two games to see how things work out.   He did take us to the Western Finals.

It's statements like this that I have a problem with.... "He" took us to the Western Finals??  No.... that win in Regina was a lot of good defensive play, and adequate offensive production against a team that couldn't put up any points.   What did "He" proceed to do in the Western Final??  Have about 75 yards passing through 3 quarters of play, and show that when the chips are on the table, he couldn't get it done. 

I’m going to advocate for Matt Nichols. The thread has two questions. 

1. The standings after 18 games determines the playoff participants and home files. How a squad moves in the standings is the primary objective of a coach and team. Games won directly affect the standings. Winning is more important than how you win. 

2. Passing yards are a result of execution for each passing play. The game plan and then situation determines the coach’s call. As the plays, running, long pass, short pass, etc support the objective. Also situational is field position, and score. On Thursday, the bombers had great field position most of the first three quarters and had substantial leads for most of the game. Passing yards become more meaningful with more games to compare the same position, and has less meaning when measuring team success for the playoff standings. 

19 hours ago, GCJenks said:

Wow, I hope you know him in real life or that is a real b&*ch way to address someone the day they join and before you know their tendancies. 

Dont be a ***** alright

16 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

We don't.

We celebrate wins.

It’s a sports thing and we’re continuing to do it again this year.

Wins, that's the key. Weve been able to celebrate more wins then any other other team except Calgary since Nichols started....just a coincidence I guess.

15 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

He's good because the D held repeatedly, even when the O couldn't get 1-2 first downs to kill the clock at the end of each half and turned the ball over at the end of each half handing Edmonton the ball in our territory.

Half those FG's go for TD's and we're just a team with a QB who can't make enough plays to win, or more likely we should fire the DC and cut all the DB's.  Funny how that works.

Yes if reality wasnt reality things would be different. Great observation