Interesting.

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

So, uh- what firmed it up for you? 

I think when he saw his wife hahahaha

This question is for another day. I just want to enjoy winning the Cup. Who got da Cup? We got da Cup! Who got da Cup? We got da Cup!!

Strev’s toss was a thing of beauty.   Would be great to have him and ZC here all season.  I assume ZC wants to go back east but there’s no better situation if You want to win then here. 

Looking at Zach's numbers after four games, I don't see how we couldn't have achieved the exact same result with Nichols. We won with Zach the same way we always have with Matt. No turnovers, scoring off opposing turnovers, great run game and good defense. There were more deep balls, sure, but the blueprint was the same.

I guess my point is, Collaros was a great pick up because he was able to come in and give us what we were missing when Nichols went down.

25 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Looking at Zach's numbers after four games, I don't see how we couldn't have achieved the exact same result with Nichols. We won with Zach the same way we always have with Matt. No turnovers, scoring off opposing turnovers, great run game and good defense. There were more deep balls, sure, but the blueprint was the same.

I guess my point is, Collaros was a great pick up because he was able to come in and give us what we were missing when Nichols went down.

agreed...was same script...the only thing I think that was different tho was Zack in the pocket...his pocket presence and ability to move around in it to make the deeper shots when needed...not sure Nichols would have been able to do that on all the occasions Collaros did...but guess we will never know...and for now....who cares hahaha

Zack Collaros final record in Blue and Gold may go down as 4-0 3-0 in the playoffs and 1 Grey Cup. Legend in the City of Winnipeg forever.

30 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Looking at Zach's numbers after four games, I don't see how we couldn't have achieved the exact same result with Nichols. We won with Zach the same way we always have with Matt. No turnovers, scoring off opposing turnovers, great run game and good defense. There were more deep balls, sure, but the blueprint was the same.

I guess my point is, Collaros was a great pick up because he was able to come in and give us what we were missing when Nichols went down.

Agree...but ZC's ability to scramble away from pressure, was a bonus

ed

Edited November 25, 20196 yr by Mark F
edt

I've always like Matt Nichols play here for the most part.

But i'm starting to Think we need to sign Collaros instead of Matt nichols because he has better pocket pressence and can roll out and still throw downfield vs throwing it away. 

My concern is his ability to stay healthy and whether or not we can Keep Strevler as well for that 1-2 punch.  Mcquire will hopefully turn into a lights out QB in the future.

But do we go with Masoli, Arcbuckle if given the chance or do you go with who you know you got?

 

16 minutes ago, Booch said:

agreed...was same script...the only thing I think that was different tho was Zack in the pocket...his pocket presence and ability to move around in it to make the deeper shots when needed...not sure Nichols would have been able to do that on all the occasions Collaros did...but guess we will never know...and for now....who cares hahaha

Agree totally. Collaros seemed to move in the pocket a bit better and attack down field more. 

Yeah, I'm well known as a Matt Nichols supporter and I'll go to bat for him all day, but we were saying last night that there were a couple plays where the pocket collapsed and in that situation, Nichols would eat the sack or throw it away, but Collaros was able to navigate the pressure while keeping his eyes downfield the entire time, and then find a target 10-15 yards down. That's not something I'm sure Nichols could or would do...

11 minutes ago, Adrenaline_x said:

I've always like Matt Nichols play here for the most part.

But i'm starting to Think we need to sign Collaros instead of Matt nichols because he has better pocket pressence and can roll out and still throw downfield vs throwing it away. 

My concern is his ability to stay healthy and whether or not we can Keep Strevler as well for that 1-2 punch.  Mcquire will hopefully turn into a lights out QB in the future.

But do we go with Masoli, Arcbuckle if given the chance or do you go with who you know you got?

 

Between Collaros, Nichols, Streveler and McGuire they've got plenty of in-house options to consider, I don't think they'll bother chasing after Masoli or Arbuckle.

2 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Between Collaros, Nichols, Streveler and McGuire they've got plenty of in-house options to consider, I don't think they'll bother chasing after Masoli or Arbuckle.

I wouldn't think so either but with all our QBs being free agents they need to consider these things.. the closer they get to Free agency the more worried i will be. 

Big Chris needs to come back.. he presence and results are part of the identity of the Team.. And i'm Leaning toward collaros vs nichols if they can do that.  He appears to be a good fit and regained his stardom that i thought he had lost.

 

To think, they called in Drew, the now limp, willy.. **** that could have been brutal.

 

But if Lapo is gone, the offence could look completely differnt next year. Are there any proven OCs that we can hire?

 

Really think that Buck Pierce has earned the opportunity to be the OC if Lapo moves on.

1 minute ago, Jpan85 said:

Really think that Buck Pierce has earned the opportunity to be the OC if Lapo moves on.

yah... familar with the Playbook. 

Familar with the QBs. 

has done a great job getting the QBs playing well.

 

I'd be more than OK with Buck taking over if need be...he is already heavily involved in creating the game plan...taking input from players and incorporating it into what they do...former QB so he knows the league and has been coaching for what...7 years now?..he's ready...he would most likely call a game more like he played and not as conservative as Lapo..And I'd be fine with that...

18 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Yeah, I'm well known as a Matt Nichols supporter and I'll go to bat for him all day, but we were saying last night that there were a couple plays where the pocket collapsed and in that situation, Nichols would eat the sack or throw it away, but Collaros was able to navigate the pressure while keeping his eyes downfield the entire time, and then find a target 10-15 yards down. That's not something I'm sure Nichols could or would do...

I love me some matty ice but Collaros was able to move around in the pocket effortlessly. 

Here's something that just occurred to me. If Zach doesn't come back he won a Grey Cup with the Bombers having never lost a game. Has a QB ever done such a thing before?

 

13 minutes ago, GCJenks said:

Here's something that just occurred to me. If Zach doesn't come back he won a Grey Cup with the Bombers having never lost a game. Has a QB ever done such a thing before?

 

No way, 4-0 to win the cup will never be duplicated again.  It's way too crazy.

1 hour ago, Adrenaline_x said:

I wouldn't think so either but with all our QBs being free agents they need to consider these things.. the closer they get to Free agency the more worried i will be. 

Big Chris needs to come back.. he presence and results are part of the identity of the Team.. And i'm Leaning toward collaros vs nichols if they can do that.  He appears to be a good fit and regained his stardom that i thought he had lost.

 

To think, they called in Drew, the now limp, willy.. **** that could have been brutal.

 

But if Lapo is gone, the offence could look completely differnt next year. Are there any proven OCs that we can hire?

 

So either one of Matt and Chris or zach and Chris. That means McGuire goes on the pr.  Stalls his development or we lose him totally. Or we go with strev and McGuire and too me that sounds like a scary situation going into the new year.

6 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

So either one of Matt and Chris or zach and Chris. That means McGuire goes on the pr.  Stalls his development or we lose him totally. Or we go with strev and McGuire and too me that sounds like a scary situation going into the new year.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't go into a CFL season without a veteran QB1....... see: Redblacks, Ottawa

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Between Collaros, Nichols, Streveler and McGuire they've got plenty of in-house options to consider, I don't think they'll bother chasing after Masoli or Arbuckle.

I agree. Though I do like arbuckle, I think calgary may finally move one from BLM and keep arbuckle. That is the most calgary thing to do. 

Any one know the contract status of MBT? That could be an interesting name in FA, Itd be interesting to see what he could do on a good team. 

10 minutes ago, Noeller said:

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't go into a CFL season without a veteran QB1....... see: Redblacks, Ottawa

Don’t forget Toronto too! I think fans are just gonna have to deal with losing a qb wether it be Matt or Chris or McGuire, I don’t think all 3 of them are back 

1 minute ago, Tiny759 said:

Don’t forget Toronto too! I think fans are just gonna have to deal with losing a qb wether it be Matt or Chris or McGuire, I don’t think all 3 of them are back 

If the CFL persists with this two QB rule, McGuire will be just one of a boatload of young QB's pushed out but hanging around the periphery on PR lists.

25 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

So either one of Matt and Chris or zach and Chris. That means McGuire goes on the pr.  Stalls his development or we lose him totally. Or we go with strev and McGuire and too me that sounds like a scary situation going into the new year.

Even tho there is going to be this apparent 2 QB rule for guys allowed on game day roster it doesn't mean that teams won't/cant have a 3rd ready to roll on the PR or on the undressed portion of the active roster...to handcuff a team like that would be ludicrous

There will be a provision or spot for at minimum a 3rd somewhere, or if not the 3rd on a team will be on a PR but not paid the PR minimum..