First off....tho not an excuse for the loss, but man that reffing again was the shitz

Secondly even tho that was some the crappiest scheming and game planning to date, we actually were in a position to win that game amazingly...but once again the long and short of it we were let down again by poor coaching, which involved the game plan (both sides the ball) ...the lack of any adjustments or recognition of what was even actually going on in the game, and how to attack it, and a total deviation away from what seemed to be our identity, especially on offense from last 2 games and a way to control a game from the on-set.

Safe to say I don't think our staff when watching the film even know what to watch, and build off of, and or where to tweak (more on that later) and sadly was a fail in the litmus test of who/what we are and that almost certain the Mtl game was an anomaly, or the just had a real bad night and came in too cocky and dropped a deuce...I think I am confident in saying it was both from what was witnessed

Now explain to me why we haven't been using Singer all yr....when we easily could have/should have been but opted for the sillyb3 Canadian plan? Sure it's one reg. season game...But he looked and did just as he has in his 2 pre-season games, has all the tools required (speed...tight route runner...high points a ball...a threat with it...obviously has ZC trust with 9 targets) and looked far from being a green rookie in one the more intimidating first game environments. Now imagine with me if you will where he could be right now with that being game 12 under his belt as opposed to 11 weeks running skelly in practice. Been saying it all yr what a dumb decision that was and talent should always trump familiarity and bias but here we are...seeing as the West has no real R.O.Y standout undoubted he would be our R.O.Y nominee and likely maybe the West front runner...weird eh...

Also explain to me why Cobb and Neild are ahead of Big Kev again...A guy who is a size mismatch with pretty much anyone...DB's you can see don't like taking him on with any physicality and has a 76% catch rate over his yrs here. He can play outside, though not his best place to be but would be ideal inside and in TE sets as a blocker "and" a threat to slide out and catch a pass and do something with it. Like Singer...Imagine what his development would be with actual use (proper use) and reps, especially now in his 3rd yr. Christ in his rookie yr he had an 80% catch rate...was good on 2nd down conversions at 15%...and this yr of his targets 67% have converted 2nd downs..seems like a guy you would wanna lean on and expand his role...But hey let's drop Corcorran and Cobb in the lineup...neither of whom compared to him, and quite frankly he should be getting more reps ahead of Neild too....But again talent and potential gets trumped by a HC bias to his favorites for whatever reason....That Daniel's poor attempt at that 2nd down conversion alone should at least have Clercius above him to be that guy, if not bump Daniels right off the roster for now. I have yet to see an impactful block by him this yr but have noticed Clercius on several with key blocks. But I guess since we traded up to get him that sealed his position on roster...Pre-determined before TC like several others

If Demski is back next week and the wr group isn't him with White..Pokey...Singer and more Clercius....Some heads need to roll if not get 5 upside the head...And if Pokey cant go then better be Womack getting his audition

Dumb roster decisions by a dumb coach...Also nice to get Peterson on the roster...but why when he just stood there all game...maybe a 2 back set at some times....Make the defense have to choose one or other...maybe slide one out in motion to see what coverage is there and if its a LB gonna be on man and not just a zone it opens up space for the other to run?...no creativity...no foresight...just dumb coaching to bring on a guy...much like Hazen to basically have zero participation...But looking at our neglected depth chart there was really nobody else to bring on...speaking of which we have no Global player on it so if Sheehan was to have gone down and cant go next week...we scrambling to add one and they get automatically rostered regardless of any usefulness...that's just mint too...They oblivious to their roster...as it sits we have 9 tho it was 10 with Peterson...but we can actually have 12 with 2 extra's being globals...and we don't have any why??...Be nice to have 1 there who we familiar with...and is familiar with us...but nope

Elsbury...why?....He has gotten worse as the season has dragged on...Obviously teams are doing their film work to see how to turnstile him. Tho we dont see it....Osh see's his big legs and is all chubby about it but the guy being an import is nowhere giving you bang for the buck when you sacrifice a much needed American elsewhere who could make an impact. And as mentioned in game day thread all these what seems like missed blocks/free guys taking shots/ what looks to be confusion as to who takes who on the interior....in my football experience and eye tells me the center is not making the right calls....and is not seeing things right cause that should never happen as much as it is...Our veteran oline man all around him should not look as pathetic as they have on many occasions, nor has their skills eroded that much...plus his snaps are still all over the map and not consistent, and for a big guy he sure gets roller skated back into the pocket alot..I' almost say more than Kolo...Eli would give us way more and is nowhere near as bad as Center Guy...He's now lost his name like Sheehan did until he started to punt more like a punter now, so got his name back

Those 2 last paragraphs lead again back to what my drum beat for 3+ yrs is now...Poor coaching...a total inability to recognize things...let alone actual talent that matters between the white lines...and is killing us...over and over.....and over...I didnt even listen to the post game but I sure osh used the big comeback to say basically we all good....and we arent

Woodbey I think is done for yr if not while as he went out non-contact, so curious what bonehead addition Osh will make...Seeing as they like to use Ayers (who stepped up) and Woodbey as an End...maybe dress Jaworski as he is...hmmm...an end and actually has a motor to play inside and could offer some spark to the Dline...But I sure he will go with Hazen...for no particular reason other than Osh is a clueless blind squirrel looking for nut... I would have gave him huge props going for 2 when we had some momo to win the game even if we failed

BB...thats the true litmus...if we tank that one safe to say next weeks post will be rigor mortise setting in edition

3 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

Lets look at the roster deployment.

We focus heavily on special teams, and our special teams have for the most part been great.....

We also give Younger and the defence what appear to be all it wants, look at the depth, the rotation, the ratio he gets, then flip it to the offence.....

It seems like the whole offence is almost an after thought, 3 CDN receivers, CDN RB Ike to back up, but he is really a special teamer.....one back up Oline in Eli, and another CDN receivers to back up all , with a CDN rookie TE, who is still wet behind the ears.....

Now with a roster make up like this you would expect the specials to be great...and check mark, they are....but you should also expect your defence to be great....I mean if you allocate your resources so heavily into one faucet it should yield you big returns.....but our defence isn't yielding those big returns ....not equal to the allocation of assets anyway ...

So what do we do, do we keep giving our specials everything they need, do we keep allocating what's left over almost exclusively to the defence.....or do we look at the offence and try to balance our portfolio better, and see if the losses from pulling a guy or two from specials and/or defence to get a guy like Singer on the roster....does adding a guy like Singer give you a net bigger return overall????

Sure seems like it does.....so the burning question is.....why didn't we try weeks ago....and will we try moving forward or does Singer get SAT again when we are healthy in favour of specials and defence.....yet again.....

Idk about the D. The Lber DIs are basically for teams. Woodbey is cooked, we don't have the proper DI DB that is reliable any more, its all a mess. The O is a worse mess though for sure.

The D to me looks confused. Confused chaos. But not in a good way. I think JY also thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, think he’s trying to just be 2 over complicated at times and it just confuses our players who are just not as perhaps athletic as required for whatever it is he’s running. But even in mass confusion if they could make that 1st tackle all the time, they would be off the field quicker. Because lots of times, it is a missed tackle that extends drives. Talent is lacking and coaching them how to tackle appears to be also not there. Prob tough when not in pads lots tho.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by Goalie

20 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

Lets look at the roster deployment.

We focus heavily on special teams, and our special teams have for the most part been great.....

We also give Younger and the defence what appear to be all it wants, look at the depth, the rotation, the ratio he gets, then flip it to the offence.....

It seems like the whole offence is almost an after thought, 3 CDN receivers, CDN RB Ike to back up, but he is really a special teamer.....one back up Oline in Eli, and another CDN receivers to back up all , with a CDN rookie TE, who is still wet behind the ears.....

Now with a roster make up like this you would expect the specials to be great...and check mark, they are....but you should also expect your defence to be great....I mean if you allocate your resources so heavily into one faucet it should yield you big returns.....but our defence isn't yielding those big returns ....not equal to the allocation of assets anyway ...

So what do we do, do we keep giving our specials everything they need, do we keep allocating what's left over almost exclusively to the defence.....or do we look at the offence and try to balance our portfolio better, and see if the losses from pulling a guy or two from specials and/or defence to get a guy like Singer on the roster....does adding a guy like Singer give you a net bigger return overall????

Sure seems like it does.....so the burning question is.....why didn't we try weeks ago....and will we try moving forward or does Singer get SAT again when we are healthy in favour of specials and defence.....yet again.....

The cover teams played really well without the extra ST linebacker. More proof that you don’t need to keep Singer off the roster for a guy like Hazen.

So hazen went off for singer? HAZEN with zero stats.

Who came on for Demski tho. Canadian. But who was it actually lol. I don’t know. It was Peterson or a LB. lol.

Off Moxey hazen. In. Singer Nichols

Off Demski Clark. In. Bouliane? And Peterson.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by Goalie

4 minutes ago, Goalie said:

The D to me looks confused. Confused chaos. But not in a good way. I think JY also thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, think he’s trying to just be 2 over complicated at times and it just confuses our players who are just not as perhaps athletic as required for whatever it is he’s running. But even in mass confusion if they could make that 1st tackle all the time, they would be off the field quicker. Because lots of times, it is a missed tackle that extends drives. Talent is lacking and coaching them how to tackle appears to be also not there. Prob tough when not in pads lots tho.

100%. Basically, they are being left to make too many decisions too late. Especially in the Cover 2 scheme, we've used entirely too much, with 2 canadian Ss. The field is too wide, and the deep cover guys are horribly unreliable. Which means handoffs and pickups are a severe struggle, and the two Ss have to wait till much later to pick a side or risk leaving another opening. Cover 3, 4, and 5 have been the meat and potatoes of match zone and split field zone for as long as those have been used up here. We have reinvented the wheel and replaced it with a square.

We even saw JY go back to the cover 9 drop 3 we ran a few years ago, but even that didn't accomplish any thing.

7 hours ago, GCn20 said:

The right call is always to go for OT. Always. Every coach ever will tell you that.

Uh huh. Why?

3 hours ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Curious if nothing is ever the coaches fault, what is it you think they do exactly?

Be awesome. Isn't that the entire job. 🤣

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

So hazen went off for singer? HAZEN with zero stats.

Who came on for Demski tho. Canadian. But who was it actually lol. I don’t know. It was Peterson or a LB. lol.

Off Moxey hazen. In. Singer Nichols

Off Demski Clark. In. Bouliane? And Peterson.

That’s right. I meant when Demski comes back they can still leave Singer on for Hazen without really losing anything.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

On the other hand a few wins against Western opponents and we're in... Which isn't so far fetched. Couple plays go the other way wins against Edmonton and Saskatchewan were there for the taking in recent weeks.

basically if we did a lil adapting...adjusting...sprinkled in some good coaching...a bit different decision making...we win....I agree...we lost cause of the coaching...again...

2 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Yeah, not even close to 100%. He isn't in the late stages of Nichols, but he makes decisions as if he can still go crazy legs, and he can't.

Elsbury is such a disappointment. He's a true rookie, so that is tough, but he shouldn't be starting at all. Its not easy, but you don't see imp interior OL that often either.

This is as bad as our OL has played since the first year bob took over coaching it.

yup...poor decision to go that route game 1...Sadly it seemed it was pre-decided going into camp anyway...3 Cdn receivers and an import center...regardless of what transpired in camp and if another player(s) showed to be the better route...gee where have we seen that before?...

And then an even poorer decision to maintain their stance on it after 3..4 games when it was obvious it was a real weakness....and again....how many times we seen that??

And yeah with ZC he is making some decisions now also based on self-preservation...almost fear to stay safe cause he is hindered now in navigating the pocket, and effects a lot of his passes.

32 minutes ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

That’s right. I meant when Demski comes back they can still leave Singer on for Hazen without really losing anything.

Oh I agree.

2 hours ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

Lets look at the roster deployment.

We focus heavily on special teams, and our special teams have for the most part been great.....

We also give Younger and the defence what appear to be all it wants, look at the depth, the rotation, the ratio he gets, then flip it to the offence.....

It seems like the whole offence is almost an after thought, 3 CDN receivers, CDN RB Ike to back up, but he is really a special teamer.....one back up Oline in Eli, and another CDN receivers to back up all , with a CDN rookie TE, who is still wet behind the ears.....

Now with a roster make up like this you would expect the specials to be great...and check mark, they are....but you should also expect your defence to be great....I mean if you allocate your resources so heavily into one faucet it should yield you big returns.....but our defence isn't yielding those big returns ....not equal to the allocation of assets anyway ...

So what do we do, do we keep giving our specials everything they need, do we keep allocating what's left over almost exclusively to the defence.....or do we look at the offence and try to balance our portfolio better, and see if the losses from pulling a guy or two from specials and/or defence to get a guy like Singer on the roster....does adding a guy like Singer give you a net bigger return overall????

Sure seems like it does.....so the burning question is.....why didn't we try weeks ago....and will we try moving forward or does Singer get SAT again when we are healthy in favour of specials and defence.....yet again.....

Thing Osh doesn't grasp...Guys with high upside...or legit backup ability or who can push a vet/starter for reps can also play special teams...most times better than the plug...A plug with only ST skill, is just that...a guy who serves one purpose and cant be expected to handle the previous traits I just mentioned...and why we are so thin in depth and development and seem to have to play guys out of position to cover for rotation/injury.

Couple that with redundant players on roster (abundance of LB's DB types and hybrids) further skews things

In the Singer example...He could have easily been on roster all yr in lieu of Hazen...and whatever slug was in before him. Hazen served zero purpose and was never gonna see field on defence..Singer would been a key part on offense as well on returns to help out Vaval...especially in games where he was knicked like last game

And you mentioned MCI...He is crazy good on teams...but also can be on offence too if used and developed...or just given a consistent role to learn and grow into...He probably one the most gifted athletes on the whole damn team but just gets neglected and stagnated. We fail miserably to develop anyone as we are too rigid in our ideals and the way we construct roster...We go in with an idea and create it by forcing things into place based on what we want the ratio to be, or think is best use of talent...instead of recognizing and then utilizing the best talent available and work your ratio from that. That's assbackwards and really stupid managing of the roster. And just look at the configuration of the PR and how it does nothing currently to serve the needs and coverage of the current rostered team...it's pathetic...It's not meant to be a static list of 10 players entirely, but a place to develop and or bring in and re-assess new guys...we break camp and the 45...and the 10 man PR is what it is...doesnt change...nobody loses a job for poor play...nobody gets a chance to prove themselves save for injury...and even then we have a bad rap for playing guys hurt and inneffective....History has shown us this

2 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

The cover teams played really well without the extra ST linebacker. More proof that you don’t need to keep Singer off the roster for a guy like Hazen.

was great before him...and he was originally added when no guy that played extensively teams was even hurt...his first game he never touched the field, and just add's to the lunacy of that add...added for no particular reason other than Osh's dumb decision

And with Woodbey down now...likely for some time...He is not the best addition either again...Jaworski would make more sense...Heck even Womack to see what he could do.

I'd even like to see since Hazen just stood around anyway add Vpool or Poncius....and Osh actually take his selfish head out of arse and Nationalize Bryant...and use him as such and if Wallace is struggling...or in longer developing plays sub them in and shore up protection

2 hours ago, Goalie said:

So hazen went off for singer? HAZEN with zero stats.

Who came on for Demski tho. Canadian. But who was it actually lol. I don’t know. It was Peterson or a LB. lol.

Off Moxey hazen. In. Singer Nichols

Off Demski Clark. In. Bouliane? And Peterson.

was Peterson...who got zero snaps

4 hours ago, aalgernon said:

Uh huh. Why?

Ask them. My thoughts are probably because no coach wants to put the game onto a coin flip % of success. Historically the success rate of going for 2 is about 55%.

Edited September 9Sep 9 by GCn20

12 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Can you tell me what needed changing? We were up by a point at half time, and ended up tied? You want wholesale changes at half time, on the road, in the LDC with a half time lead. That doesn't make much sense. This is exactly the game we needed to play. What I did see change was our OL wore down as the game went on, receivers drop some very catchable balls that killed drives, same with penalties but that's not on the coaches.

I don't care about halftime. Being up by a point at halftime, whoop de doo. Give the players participation badges. They lost & looked bad doing it. I care abouit the final score. Not halftime.

Edited September 9Sep 9 by SpeedFlex27

18 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Ask them. My thoughts are probably because no coach wants to put the game onto a coin flip % of success. Historically the success rate of going for 2 is about 55%.

What do you think the odds of 1 out of 2 teams winning in OT are?

4 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't care about halftime. Being up by a point at halftime, whoop de doo. Give the players participation badges. They lost & looked bad doing it. I care abouit the final score. Not halftime.

The question was why we never saw wholesale changes to the gameplan at half time. My response was that we are winning at the half, after erasing a 2 score deficit in a very hostile road environment. Anyone expecting us to be firing on all cylinders under those circumstances is living in dream land or completely unaware of the challenge the LDC typically presents

1 minute ago, blue85gold said:

What do you think the odds of 1 out of 2 teams winning in OT are?

4 minutes ago, blue85gold said:

What do you think the odds of 1 out of 2 teams winning in OT are?

Historically we have a 68% OT success rate. Cant speak for other teams on this one. BTW, on the road 2 point convert success drops to 44% league wide historically.

Edited September 9Sep 9 by GCn20

What is the Bombers record in OT games since they've instituted the mini games? They can't have played in much more than a half dozen.

1 hour ago, blue85gold said:

What do you think the odds of 1 out of 2 teams winning in OT are?

50% ?

1 hour ago, ShyGuy said:

What is the Bombers record in OT games since they've instituted the mini games? They can't have played in much more than a half dozen.

68%. The mini games have been in place since 2000. We've been involved in 3 in the past season and a half alone

Edited September 9Sep 9 by GCn20

31 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

68%. The mini games have been in place since 2000. We've been involved in 3 in the past season and a half alone

Where are you getting 68% from? Looking at the 2026 media guide which has team standings year by year

0-1-1 (2000) (Mini-games from the 35, up to 2 per team)
0-0 (2001)
2-0 (2002)
0-0 (2003)
0-0 (2004)
0-0 (2005)
0-0 (2006)
0-0-1 (2007)
0-0 (2008)
0-0 (2009)
1-1 (2010) (Mini-games, forced 2 point converts)
0-0 (2011)
0-0 (2012)
0-1 (2013)
0-0 (2014)
0-0 (2015)
0-0 (2016)
2-0 (2017)
1-0 (2018)
0-0 (2019)
0-0 (2021) ... but this doesn't count the grey cup
0-1 (2022)
1`-2 (2023)
0-2 (2024)
0-0 (2025)

By my count that is 7 wins, 8 losses and 2 ties in the regular season coming into 2026, so 8-8 with the Grey Cup counting, and then 1-0 this year heading into the LDC so we'll call it 9-8 which would be 52% (if you ignore ties)... but 3-5 since COVID which is 37.5%

Also "since 2000" is kind of an irrelevant time frame... this years team doesn't look like last years... nevermind what it looked like 25 years ago...

IMO we saw in Ottawa that we might have a few decent 2 pt convert plays in the back pocket... I was in favour of going for two...

8 hours ago, ShyGuy said:

Where are you getting 68% from? Looking at the 2026 media guide which has team standings year by year

0-1-1 (2000) (Mini-games from the 35, up to 2 per team)
0-0 (2001)
2-0 (2002)
0-0 (2003)
0-0 (2004)
0-0 (2005)
0-0 (2006)
0-0-1 (2007)
0-0 (2008)
0-0 (2009)
1-1 (2010) (Mini-games, forced 2 point converts)
0-0 (2011)
0-0 (2012)
0-1 (2013)
0-0 (2014)
0-0 (2015)
0-0 (2016)
2-0 (2017)
1-0 (2018)
0-0 (2019)
0-0 (2021) ... but this doesn't count the grey cup
0-1 (2022)
1`-2 (2023)
0-2 (2024)
0-0 (2025)

By my count that is 7 wins, 8 losses and 2 ties in the regular season coming into 2026, so 8-8 with the Grey Cup counting, and then 1-0 this year heading into the LDC so we'll call it 9-8 which would be 52% (if you ignore ties)... but 3-5 since COVID which is 37.5%

So slightly worse than going for two, and probably much worse when you count momentum and how much the defense was folding in the 2nd half (and the fact that we scored largely because of penalties).

3 hours ago, bearpants said:

Also "since 2000" is kind of an irrelevant time frame... this years team doesn't look like last years... nevermind what it looked like 25 years ago...

IMO we saw in Ottawa that we might have a few decent 2 pt convert plays in the back pocket... I was in favour of going for two...

I think it's the smart play. Have Riders on their heels a bit. Really tough conditions with having to go silent.

Also don't see the need to play D first in OT when we get the choice. I get the orthodoxy in that choice, IF all things are equal BUT Rider D was just out there. Killed any positive momentum you had with O. Put a TD on the board and let your D win it.

18 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

That’s right. I meant when Demski comes back they can still leave Singer on for Hazen without really losing anything.

We have barely used a DI on O the past couple seasons. I think it's quite reasonable to do so, especially when we are lacking in playmakers significantly.

What would be really insane is if we continue to use a DI on Castillo if the field changes happen. Placekicking is going to become far less important. Grab someone like Brady Lidster and play to score TD's.

19 hours ago, Goalie said:

The D to me looks confused. Confused chaos. But not in a good way. I think JY also thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room, think he’s trying to just be 2 over complicated at times and it just confuses our players who are just not as perhaps athletic as required for whatever it is he’s running. But even in mass confusion if they could make that 1st tackle all the time, they would be off the field quicker. Because lots of times, it is a missed tackle that extends drives. Talent is lacking and coaching them how to tackle appears to be also not there. Prob tough when not in pads lots tho.

A system that relies on a whole bunch of guys making the same read is the very hardest to run. And that's what he wants to do. It stops feet and pulls all the aggression out of the players when they are always just trying to be in the right spot. And JY is so reliant on vets who are physically not as competitive anymore because they get it.

So you see some busts on guys like Texada and Vaval who aren't out there much and you even see the veteran guys trying to assume what the QB read is but missing guys going vertical. There's no defense played in the entire world of football above crunchers where you are letting guys run vertical routes by themselves like we saw Duncan-Busby and Wiebe get a few times last week.

On 2026-09-09 at 6:51 AM, bearpants said:

Also "since 2000" is kind of an irrelevant time frame... this years team doesn't look like last years... nevermind what it looked like 25 years ago...

IMO we saw in Ottawa that we might have a few decent 2 pt convert plays in the back pocket... I was in favour of going for two...

I think you may be over valuing that OT play calling. In my opinion it was more of a busted Defensive play call, than a masterful Offense. Ottawa I believe dropped into a zone defense, which is just crazy for that field position.