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

2 hours ago, do or die said:

Someday we won't have Harris as a security blanket

Someday we won't have Nichols either. 

In fact, I'm betting that in the last 50 years or so the average # of years for a starting QB is probably pretty low. Brock was here the most - about 8 years. Clements about 4, Dunigan maybe 3, Khari and Glenn about the same. So unless we win the Grey Cup this year, my educated guess is that next year we move with someone else.

28 minutes ago, blueingreenland said:

Someday we won't have Nichols either. 

In fact, I'm betting that in the last 50 years or so the average # of years for a starting QB is probably pretty low. Brock was here the most - about 8 years. Clements about 4, Dunigan maybe 3, Khari and Glenn about the same. So unless we win the Grey Cup this year, my educated guess is that next year we move with someone else.

To throw a wild number out there I would guess the average starting qbs term of service here is a shade over 1 year. And I think Im guessing high. 

The league as a whole seems to be on the verge of a massive roll over among starting qbs. (i mean its allready happened a lot due to injuries but I think a lot of guys fall out of the league between this off season and next year that would have been in starter battles now and prior) 

3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

To throw a wild number out there I would guess the average starting qbs term of service here is a shade over 1 year. And I think Im guessing high. 

The league as a whole seems to be on the verge of a massive roll over among starting qbs. (i mean its allready happened a lot due to injuries but I think a lot of guys fall out of the league between this off season and next year that would have been in starter battles now and prior) 

from our friends at Wikipedia:   Bomber QBs

1 minute ago, 66 Chevelle said:

from our friends at Wikipedia:   Bomber QBs

So actually its .96 years per starter. But if you remove the low outliers and count the entrenched starters, guys given the reigns and margin of error for more then say half a year its more like a year and a half. Only pierce and glenn have been around as much and only khari longer. 

But QBs age funny. Ac was old when he became a star. Same with khari. Danny mac hit his stride late, and damon allen played till he was a living fossil. That said things are not trending well for nichols here. 

27 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

That said things are not trending well for nichols here. 

No they are not. I suspect even if stay-the-course O'Shea wants to keep Nichols in the off-season Mr. Walters might have a different idea.

2 hours ago, 66 Chevelle said:

how about this one, in the last game against Calgary, 12 of 18 completions, 66.6% of our completions, traveled on average 1 foot, that's 12" for those keeping score at home, through the air... the average air travel for all passes completed was 4.6 yards...

What was the score against Calgary again?

The “but we won!!!” argument is just so unbelievably bad, it’s hard to take it seriously. 

23 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

The “but we won!!!” argument is just so unbelievably bad, it’s hard to take it seriously. 

Granted, it is hard to take the negativity here when we're 6-2...  and I used to negatron things to the max...

7 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Granted, it is hard to take the negativity here when we're 6-2...  and I used to negatron things to the max...

Some people are worried that some of the stats will be what loses another playoff game.

14 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Granted, it is hard to take the negativity here when we're 6-2...  and I used to negatron things to the max...

I see what you did there, Janarion.

1 hour ago, AKAChip said:

The “but we won!!!” argument is just so unbelievably bad, it’s hard to take it seriously. 

right? Offense didnt score any points? This is fine. Offense cant buy points or first downs in the 4thq of games? this is fine. 

Edited August 13, 20196 yr by wbbfan

12 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

right? Offense didnt score any points? This is fine. Offense cant buy points or first downs in the 4thq of games? this is fine. 

Good thing they kicked that 55 yard FG. It’s almost like O’Shea knows they need to get points whenever possible. 

3 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Good thing they kicked that 55 yard FG. It’s almost like O’Shea knows they need to get points whenever possible. 

It was a gutsy kick. Though Id say he lets medlock choose to try if he thinks he can make it. Wind was gusting now and then from that direction too. 

6 hours ago, 17to85 said:

When you have an offense that doesn't run those kinds of patterns that is what happens. 

Numerous people have said that they do run those patterns.   Several from people who watch while at the game.  

Why should we believe what you say when you're watching on TV and can't see the field?  

9 hours ago, Brandon said:

Numerous people have said that they do run those patterns.   Several from people who watch while at the game.  

Why should we believe what you say when you're watching on TV and can't see the field?  

Well you in another post disregarded what Andrew Harris says about the offense, so clearly you are only interested in your own opinion.

10 hours ago, wbbfan said:

It was a gutsy kick. Though Id say he lets medlock choose to try if he thinks he can make it. Wind was gusting now and then from that direction too. 

There was zero wind during that kick. 

Quoting 4th total quarter passing stats when the team was leading in the first 5 games makes no sense.  We all know that LaPo gets conservative with the lead, so I wouldn't expect passing stats to be very high in the 4th quarter through those games.

12 hours ago, AKAChip said:

The “but we won!!!” argument is just so unbelievably bad, it’s hard to take it seriously. 

 

11 hours ago, Floyd said:

Granted, it is hard to take the negativity here when we're 6-2...  and I used to negatron things to the max...

A win is a win. But, there are some analytics stats types covering the NFL that have some evidence to support the theory that how you win or lose is a predictor of future success or failure. So, winning close games; winning because of  special teams plays versus productive offense; giving up a lot of yards or points on defense - might mean that you're not quite as good as your record. And those deficits may catch up to you late in the season or the playoffs where the level of play in all three areas rises. Not saying the Bombers hit all of those, but some for sure - offense has not really produced lately. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Well you in another post disregarded what Andrew Harris says about the offense, so clearly you are only interested in your own opinion.

When I read harris' explanation of the offence against Calgary it just made me think.." but you an matt have been playing this way in a lot  of games lately.  And now it's because your playing Calgary ? "...

26 minutes ago, M.Silverback said:

 

A win is a win. But, there are some analytics stats types covering the NFL that have some evidence to support the theory that how you win or lose is a predictor of future success or failure. So, winning close games; winning because of  special teams plays versus productive offense; giving up a lot of yards or points on defense - might mean that you're not quite as good as your record. And those deficits may catch up to you late in the season or the playoffs where the level of play in all three areas rises. Not saying the Bombers hit all of those, but some for sure - offense has not really produced lately. 

Conversely we have several seasons of evidence to show that what the bombers do does work firnwinjing more games than not.

10 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

When I read harris' explanation of the offence against Calgary it just made me think.." but you an matt have been playing this way in a lot  of games lately.  And now it's because your playing Calgary ? "...

14 td passes in the first 5 games leads one to think otherwise

8 minutes ago, Booch said:

14 td passes in the first 5 games leads one to think otherwise

And how many in the last three games ?  Is the ride over ? Have they been figured out ?

You said this has been happening in a lot of games...which I was responding to...Hamilton plays a similar defense to CGY..hence the similar offence philosophy

 

I listened to the coaches show last,  didn't learn much.  One take awaway from the show for me was that maybe the teams should be allowed more closed practises and less open to everyone practises.  Then the teams could really work on stuff to help them get better before everyone knew what the were working on. 

I listened to the coaches show.....and have discovered many interesting products and services to buy.