Tidbits courtesy of bluebombers.com and our man Ed Tait:

https://www.bluebombers.com/2023/09/02/game-preview-labour-day-classic-2/

*Note: a win this weekend would clinch a playoff spot for the Blue Bombers for a seventh straight season, their longest run since a 17-year streak ended in 1997.

- Zach Collaros is 6-0 in his career in Labour Day Classic games – 3-0 during his days in Hamilton, 1-0 in his one season in Saskatchewan and 2-0 in Winnipeg. In those games has a 13:3 TD-to-interception ratio while passing for 300 yards three times and over 400 yards in 2015 while with the Ticats.

- The Blue Bombers are 24-3 against West Division clubs since 2021.

- A victory in Regina this weekend would give the Blue Bombers a winning record on the road for the third consecutive season, matching a mark last set from 1960-62.

These are the good times, folks. I hope you are all savoring them.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Captain Blue said:

I am not against dressing more DL to help with a rotation, but I would also mention that this point is overblown given how good our defense has been this year. It's the CFL, all defenses are going to get beat up a bit sometimes. 

For my money I think the offense is much more problematic. Collaros has struggled far more this year protecting the ball and the offense as a whole is way more inconsistent (compared to the defense). 

And despite all that I still think we are the best team in the league. Toronto certainly has a good argument as well given the better record and defending champ title but I want to see how they handle things when the schedule is more compressed. 

By reading this I believe you don't really understand the point.  It's not like it's the same to run the guys out there for 60 snaps instead of 40 or 45.  You'd rather have Jeffcoat at his best for 40 snaps than dead tired for 70.

It's not really an either/or situation.  They have the roster spot to get another body on D.

So Zach is correct, CFL clearly does not give a darn about player safety. Imagine a guy head butting Mahomes or Rodgers after the play. Dude would be ejected and Goodell would have suspended him before he got back to the locker room.

30 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

Yes but also from the rulebook:

 *Each team has one challenge per game

They had zero challenges available when regulation ended as they had no timeouts.

There's nothing in the rules that says the zero becomes one in OT.

The one thing you’re all forgetting is all scoring plays are automatically reviewed. 

Has anyone else noticed our offense has morphed into how it was when Buck Pierce was QB? Feast for Famine, no sustained drives - lots of all-or-nothing style of play (1st down incomplete passes etc)

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

By reading this I believe you don't really understand the point.  It's not like it's the same to run the guys out there for 60 snaps instead of 40 or 45.  You'd rather have Jeffcoat at his best for 40 snaps than dead tired for 70.

It's not really an either/or situation.  They have the roster spot to get another body on D.

O'Shea dresses an extra lineman, only for it to be a converted Kramdi. Heads explode.

1 minute ago, Eternal optimist said:

Has anyone else noticed our offense has morphed into how it was when Buck Pierce was QB? Feast for Famine, no sustained drives - lots of all-or-nothing style of play (1st down incomplete passes etc)

It’s a Lapo offence.

2 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

The one thing you’re all forgetting is all scoring plays are automatically reviewed. 

Pretty quick review then

2 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

So Zach is correct, CFL clearly does not give a darn about player safety. Imagine a guy head butting Mahomes or Rodgers after the play. Dude would be ejected and Goodell would have suspended him before he got back to the locker room.

I think he should be suspended. 

17 minutes ago, Goalie said:

The thing that handcuffed the D today was the Os inability to move the ball 

 

And the fact the Riders had spectacular field position to start just about every drive.

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

And the fact the Riders had spectacular field position to start just about every drive.

Other than the first 20 mins of the game when our O completely didn't show up but started between the 40 and midfield the whole time while Sask was pinned inside their 20 until their big play over Houston.

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

And the fact the Riders had spectacular field position to start just about every drive.

We had pretty good kick coverage on the opening kickoff 🤣

The loss is on the passing and return game. Period.

1 minute ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

By reading this I believe you don't really understand the point.  It's not like it's the same to run the guys out there for 60 snaps instead of 40 or 45.  You'd rather have Jeffcoat at his best for 40 snaps than dead tired for 70.

It's not really an either/or situation.  They have the roster spot to get another body on D.

No I get it, I'm just not sure they feel the same way. I assume and would hope that they are comfortable with say Jeffcoat playing a high number of snaps if they are playing only 6 DL. 

I think this point has been beaten so thoroughly here that we haven't given much thought to if there are alternative reasons why they would make the decision they have. I am not even saying Osh is correct in this decision, just that I think a stance has been taken here and we haven't looked at potential reasons why they haven't made a change. 

9 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Imagine being outcoached by Craig Dickenson.

Ffs... why you gotta go there... you are truly living up to your forum name with that comment... 

 

Bummer.

Just now, Captain Blue said:

No I get it, I'm just not sure they feel the same way. I assume and would hope that they are comfortable with say Jeffcoat playing a high number of snaps if they are playing only 6 DL. 

I think this point has been beaten so thoroughly here that we haven't given much thought to if there are alternative reasons why they would make the decision they have. I am not even saying Osh is correct in this decision, just that I think a stance has been taken here and we haven't looked at potential reasons why they haven't made a change. 

I mean who cares what they are comfortable with?  The results are clear in these games.  Did you see the pass rush at all?  Only if they blitzed.

2 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

So Zach is correct, CFL clearly does not give a darn about player safety. Imagine a guy head butting Mahomes or Rodgers after the play. Dude would be ejected and Goodell would have suspended him before he got back to the locker room.

Pete Robertson has to be fined and suspended for head-butting Collaros and then giving him a knee to the head while the QB - who has a history of concussions - is still on the ground. I thought Robertson should have been ejected on the spot for intent to injure. And if it was up to me, I'd ban him from the league. The problem is that none of the on-field officials saw what happened and the infraction had to be identified by CFL central. 

1 minute ago, Doublezero said:

Pete Robertson has to be fined and suspended for head-butting Collaros and then giving him a knee to the head while the QB - who has a history of concussions - is still on the ground. I thought Robertson should have been ejected on the spot for intent to injure. And if it was up to me, I'd ban him from the league. The problem is that none of the on-field officials saw what happened and the infraction had to be identified by CFL central. 

Robertson Kneed Zach in the head too? When?

1 minute ago, Doublezero said:

Pete Robertson has to be fined and suspended for head-butting Collaros and then giving him a knee to the head while the QB - who has a history of concussions - is still on the ground. I thought Robertson should have been ejected on the spot for intent to injure. And if it was up to me, I'd ban him from the league. The problem is that none of the on-field officials saw what happened and the infraction had to be identified by CFL central. 

Didn’t see that, when did it happen? Right after the headbutt or another play?

2 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Pete Robertson has to be fined and suspended for head-butting Collaros and then giving him a knee to the head while the QB - who has a history of concussions - is still on the ground. I thought Robertson should have been ejected on the spot for intent to injure. And if it was up to me, I'd ban him from the league. The problem is that none of the on-field officials saw what happened and the infraction had to be identified by CFL central. 

The back judge clearly saw it cause he hauled ass and was in the fray before the Bombers players could even get near Robertson.

Just now, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Robertson Kneed Zach in the head too? When?

When he was down 

3 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Pete Robertson has to be fined and suspended for head-butting Collaros and then giving him a knee to the head while the QB - who has a history of concussions - is still on the ground. I thought Robertson should have been ejected on the spot for intent to injure. And if it was up to me, I'd ban him from the league. The problem is that none of the on-field officials saw what happened and the infraction had to be identified by CFL central. 

So like... legally speaking - why isn't this considered assault.

1 minute ago, Booch said:

When he was down 

Same play?

1 minute ago, Eternal optimist said:

So like... legally speaking - why isn't this considered assault.

Could very well be.  Hockey players attacking others with a stick have been charged criminally.  This was obviously not part of the game.  Collaros wasn't expecting contact there and there's no consent because play is so over.

Just now, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Same play?

Yup..right after ZC went down

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

Yup..right after ZC went down

From the head butt? 

 

You have to be more forth coming here... lol

 

 

Ok here it is...

 

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy