Go Bombers!

Not playing other players because they could be bad vs keep on playing bad players that are bad....

Just now, SaidinBlue said:

Not playing other players because they could be bad vs keep on playing bad players that are bad....

and if they are bad...why they here? get others in

Also...i've heard somewhere they all starters...are in the building casue they give us a chance to win....we like what they bring

Well then...why dont they play for the under performers?....or at times...clearly injured guys

It just feels like the Blue 3 seasons ago were able to physically beat up teams and roll in depth players to keep legs fresh and were able to out muscle teams which would then lead to the turnovers on D and far more holes for the run game + time in the pocket for Zach.     I said the same thing last season around this time of the year,  they haven't been able to dominate anything at all. 

This team has absolutely no edge and are limping along.  We need fresh faces and a pulse badly.  

Issue appears to be mainly OL and DL related. Let’s check the PR. Ohhh umm well…. Hmm ok. 
 

2 DT in Adams and woods and a DE in bailey. 
 

and OL we got Vibert and Mayers. 
 

get them on  

 

22 hours ago, Booch said:

and if they are bad...why they here? get others in

Also...i've heard somewhere they all starters...are in the building casue they give us a chance to win....we like what they bring

Well then...why dont they play for the under performers?....or at times...clearly injured guys

That is not what you heard. What you heard is the coach saying they are expected to all prepare as if they are all capable to start. Doesn`t mean they are better or even remotely as good as the guy ahead of them.  It is nonsense to take something out of context like that. No team has 53 starters on their roster, and neither do we. The guys in our starting 24 are there because of either ratio or they are deemed to be the best chance to win. Some guys are very clearly not good enough to start and that's just fact. If you want to play musical chairs at positions where guys have underperformed then you are taking all continuity away and close losses will turn into blowouts. You are aware of this, you have played the game.  I am all in favor of bringing in talent and trying it out, but trotting out known commodities that are not starting and hoping they do better you will be lucky if 10% actually are.  It is insane to think that any of our backups if inserted on mass into the lineup will make us a contender. That is dreaming in technicolor. Fact of the matter is that if we have a crappy starting lineup, we also have either crappy or not ready players behind them. I don't think that varies at all from team to team, or sport to sport and is a pretty universal truth in all sports. Sure you might get lightning in a bottle once in a while where a guy comes off the bench out of nowhere and excels but that is the exception to the rule not the rule itself.

That being said, just for the sake of opening up some guys eyes about the reality of how they are stinking up the joint we should shake up the lineup a little bit.....but it likely means a downgrade in our chance to win in the short term but long term it might wake a player or two up.

20 hours ago, Goalie said:

Issue appears to be mainly OL and DL related. Let’s check the PR. Ohhh umm well…. Hmm ok. 
 

2 DT in Adams and woods and a DE in bailey. 
 

and OL we got Vibert and Mayers. 
 

get them on  

 

It is MOS`s fault that we have no depth, haven`t you heard

Edited September 9, 2025Sep 9 by GCn20

22 hours ago, 17to85 said:

A few little upgrades = bigger overall upgrade... seriously the margins in the cfl between winning and losing are generally pretty small.

And, if you try your depth for underperforming players and they don't work out then you move on from them too and find better depth. You don't just shrug and go "oh well, it is what it is for the season"

I agree with that. However, you can`t go fullscale or you lose continuity and then you have a different reason for losing.

22 hours ago, Booch said:

and if they are bad...why they here? get others in

Also...i've heard somewhere they all starters...are in the building casue they give us a chance to win....we like what they bring

Well then...why dont they play for the under performers?....or at times...clearly injured guys

This failure that I bolded is by far our biggest problem. We can sit here and talk about tweaking our roster all day long and none of that adds up to more wins for us unless we get better players. Simple as that. There isn`t a roster combination we can field right now that makes us serious contenders.

14 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

That is not what you heard. What you heard is the coach saying they are expected to all prepare as if they are all capable to start. Doesn`t mean they are better or even remotely as good as the guy ahead of them.  It is nonsense to take something out of context like that. No team has 53 starters on their roster, and neither do we. The guys in our starting 24 are there because of either ratio or they are deemed to be the best chance to win. Some guys are very clearly not good enough to start and that's just fact. If you want to play musical chairs at positions where guys have underperformed then you are taking all continuity away and close losses will turn into blowouts. You are aware of this, you have played the game.  I am all in favor of bringing in talent and trying it out, but trotting out known commodities that are not starting and hoping they do better you will be lucky if 10% actually are.  It is insane to think that any of our backups if inserted on mass into the lineup will make us a contender. That is dreaming in technicolor. Fact of the matter is that if we have a crappy starting lineup, we also have either crappy or not ready players behind them. I don't think that varies at all from team to team, or sport to sport and is a pretty universal truth in all sports. Sure you might get lightning in a bottle once in a while where a guy comes off the bench out of nowhere and excels but that is the exception to the rule not the rule itself.

That being said, just for the sake of opening up some guys eyes about the reality of how they are stinking up the joint we should shake up the lineup a little bit.....but it likely means a downgrade in our chance to win in the short term but long term it might wake a player or two up.

It is MOS`s fault that we have no depth, haven`t you heard

Go back and listen to.soundbites or read...they are all number 1's...that's why they are here....

Yeah osh has definitely said they're all starters.

23 minutes ago, Booch said:

Go back and listen to.soundbites or read...they are all number 1's...that's why they are here....

He's said that countless times every year since 18/19. 

It's hyperbole for sure, but it's not out of context misquote at all.

47 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I agree with that. However, you can`t go fullscale or you lose continuity and then you have a different reason for losing

No one is advocating full scale, but if you have these glaring issues at certain positions standing pat is not an answer. Like centre, or DT. 

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

 

That being said, just for the sake of opening up some guys eyes about the reality of how they are stinking up the joint we should shake up the lineup a little bit.....but it likely means a downgrade in our chance to win in the short term but long term it might wake a player or two up.

It is MOS`s fault that we have no depth, haven`t you heard

To an extent it is. O'Shea has been fielding his chosen ones to the exclusion of the new arrivals who showed some potential and ultimately left. This does not exonerate Walters as he bears ultimate responsibility for overseeing the player attainment and also allowing O'Shea to create a good deal of this mess the team is in.

On 2025-09-09 at 2:39 PM, 17to85 said:

It's hyperbole for sure, but it's not out of context misquote at all.

No one is advocating full scale, but if you have these glaring issues at certain positions standing pat is not an answer. Like centre, or DT. 

I agree let's try something. I also don't feel we will be very pleased by the results.

On 2025-09-09 at 2:02 PM, Booch said:

Go back and listen to.soundbites or read...they are all number 1's...that's why they are here....

You are going to take that literally? A coach giving his backups some confidence? Obviously there is no such thing as all number 1s.

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

I agree let's try something. I also don't feel we will be very pleased by the results.

You are going to take that literally? A coach giving his backups some confidence? Obviously there is no such thing as all number 1s.

I am...cause he literally means and thinks it///we dont know his mental acumen....in his warped mind maybe he thinks that...who knows....

He can say we have total confidence in our backups without saying they are #1 's.....and if injury, we have no hesitation putting them in....and he doesnt...so he's spewwing bullshit

But also if you gonna claim and say it....prove it and play them...not the walking wounded

3 minutes ago, Booch said:

I am...cause he literally means and thinks it///we dont know his mental acumen....in his warped mind maybe he thinks that...who knows....

He can say we have total confidence in our backups without saying they are #1 's.....and if injury, we have no hesitation putting them in....and he doesnt...so he's spewwing bullshit

But also if you gonna claim and say it....prove it and play them...not the walking wounded

I agree on your last point, playing guys who are not near 100% is a recipe for losses. However, I think you are holding on a little too hard to a turn of phrase by a HC just trying to instill confidence in the next man up.

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I agree on your last point, playing guys who are not near 100% is a recipe for losses. However, I think you are holding on a little too hard to a turn of phrase by a HC just trying to instill confidence in the next man up.

The truth of us is not in what we say, but in what we actually do.

16 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I agree on your last point, playing guys who are not near 100% is a recipe for losses. However, I think you are holding on a little too hard to a turn of phrase by a HC just trying to instill confidence in the next man up.

nah....say stupid stuff....and not back up the stupidity....you get everything you deserve

And if we look back at a lot of the things over his tenure...been a lot of stupidity and not very well thought out things done....Maybe he just isn't the brightest mind....A players coach sure as he favors many and has way too much loyalty to some so many will rave about it....but it also sours and disenchants/splits portions of the room too

And we know/seen his stubbornness and reluctance to change....his rear view mirror looking and justification of his poor decisions....so ot's not like this is an anomaly or came from nowhere....he had some lightening in a bottle success, but when not provided with....or the ability to himself identify the best options...he struggles, and then we see his smugness...shortness with questions at yes at times arrogance rear it's head

lol. O’Shea did something to Booch. Broke his heart ?? Cuz bro,you sound like a scorned former lover 100 percent. All good. It’s entertaining stuff. 

Edited September 11, 2025Sep 11 by Goalie

Just now, Goalie said:

lol. O’Shea did something to Booch. Broke his heart ?? Cuz bro,you sound like a scorned former lover 100 percent. 

I do know him but nope

Tell me...and you sound like??? 

 

Me? I’m rubber and you are glue and easily triggered. 

4 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Me? I’m rubber and you are glue and easily triggered. 

Actually that appears to be u...u made the comments...I've said before I could not give an eff.  And its actually entertaining to me the lil spats with some...said it many a time too

You've also been called out on your nonesense a lot more than me as well...

But keep being rubber ok cupcake 😁