Buck definitely had a great 1st quarter with his 150 yards and going 12 - 15 or whatever it was...... however the rest of the game in my opinion he looked very shakey.    

 

I'm not an expert but this game he had more protection yet it still seemed like he was throwing without planting his foot and his passes were very wobbly, slow and fairly inaccurate.  Kind of reminded me of Khari in his last days.  

 

I don't want to pile on Pierce but his throws for the most part looked plain ugly and being an arm chair qb their were several times where he had Simpson wide open yet he locked in on his primary receiver and either went down or tossed it into tight coverage.  

 

I would not be opposed if they gave Goltz some play time because I think the offense could work if they had a qb who can actually pull of a quick release without fluttering the ball.  

Does anyone know if Max Hall has a decent release?

 

Should we trade for Glenn,  I know if Glenn played tonight we definitely would of put up much more points because the guys underneath definitely had some room to run if they had the ball. 

 

Any thoughts or am I over reacting on Buck's play?

 

 

The reason it is so frustrating is because of how good the defense is playing. We could be 2-0 right now if the offense didn't disappear for long stretches of the game. A defense like that you have a chance to do something special and we are seeing signs that once again they won't be able to take advantage of it simply because the play from the most important position on the field isn't up to par. A guy like Ray would kill teams with this offense. 

That's the defense that gave up 38pts, right? That one that got 33pts on the board deserved to win the game? ......C'mon.... I'm not saying the D didn't play well...the numbers certainly don't tell the whole story, but don't tell me that it was some dominating performance that got robbed by the offense. I don't care who's responsible for the points, but if you have 33, you should win every time...

Are you kidding me?

That's the defense that gave up 38pts, right? That one that got 33pts on the board deserved to win the game? ......C'mon.... I'm not saying the D didn't play well...the numbers certainly don't tell the whole story, but don't tell me that it was some dominating performance that got robbed by the offense. I don't care who's responsible for the points, but if you have 33, you should win every time...

 

The defense gave up 29 points, actually ... not 38. And on top of that, let's see just how Montreal scored those points.

 

7 points off a drive that started in field goal range after a Buck Pierce INT on the first offensive possession ... so the defense gets NO break after a tough stop to start the game.

3 points off another Buck Pierce INT that gave Montreal the ball starting in FG range

3 points on the NEXT drive (again no break) after a Chad Simpson fumble AGAIN giving Montreal a chance to start with the ball in field goal range.

 

There's your first half. 13 points off turnovers and realistically, the lowest they were going to give up was 9 considering Montreal started in field goal range on every one of those drives and had only two plays off in between possessions on two of those.

 

3 points off a 12 play, 85 yard drive.

7 points off ANOTHER drive starting in field goal range after Burke's awful decision to punt in the end zone.

3 points off a 10 play, 49 yard drive.

3 points off a 6 play, 38 yard drive.

 

So basically, what it boils down to is that they held Montreal to field goals every single time they had a whole field behind them and even when the offense / coaching staff set them up for failure, they still held all but twice.

 

So yes, I'd absolutely say it was a dominating performance that was robbed by the offense. 29 points allowed, 13 of which were off turnovers that gave Montreal the ball in FG territory and you can even tack on the other 7 that resulted in them starting in FG range because of a bad coaching call. That leaves 9 points that Montreal actually busted their ass to earn.

The defense gave up 29 points, actually ... not 38. And on top of that, let's see just how Montreal scored those points.

 

7 points off a drive that started in field goal range after a Buck Pierce INT on the first offensive possession ... so the defense gets NO break after a tough stop to start the game.

3 points off another Buck Pierce INT that gave Montreal the ball starting in FG range

3 points on the NEXT drive (again no break) after a Chad Simpson fumble AGAIN giving Montreal a chance to start with the ball in field goal range.

 

There's your first half. 13 points off turnovers and realistically, the lowest they were going to give up was 9 considering Montreal started in field goal range on every one of those drives and had only two plays off in between possessions on two of those.

 

3 points off a 12 play, 85 yard drive.

7 points off ANOTHER drive starting in field goal range after Burke's awful decision to punt in the end zone.

3 points off a 10 play, 49 yard drive.

3 points off a 6 play, 38 yard drive.

 

So basically, what it boils down to is that they held Montreal to field goals every single time they had a whole field behind them and even when the offense / coaching staff set them up for failure, they still held all but twice.

 

So yes, I'd absolutely say it was a dominating performance that was robbed by the offense. 29 points allowed, 13 of which were off turnovers that gave Montreal the ball in FG territory and you can even tack on the other 7 that resulted in them starting in FG range because of a bad coaching call. That leaves 9 points that Montreal actually busted their ass to earn.

 

 

Legit analysis - With the field position our offense gave Montreal that game it's difficult to expect much better

well in reality in the second game we had the same problem with turnovers and the defense did play better and win the game for us but for sake of argument you can't fault them in the first game.

The defense gave up 29 points, actually ... not 38. And on top of that, let's see just how Montreal scored those points.

 

7 points off a drive that started in field goal range after a Buck Pierce INT on the first offensive possession ... so the defense gets NO break after a tough stop to start the game.

3 points off another Buck Pierce INT that gave Montreal the ball starting in FG range

3 points on the NEXT drive (again no break) after a Chad Simpson fumble AGAIN giving Montreal a chance to start with the ball in field goal range.

 

There's your first half. 13 points off turnovers and realistically, the lowest they were going to give up was 9 considering Montreal started in field goal range on every one of those drives and had only two plays off in between possessions on two of those.

 

3 points off a 12 play, 85 yard drive.

7 points off ANOTHER drive starting in field goal range after Burke's awful decision to punt in the end zone.

3 points off a 10 play, 49 yard drive.

3 points off a 6 play, 38 yard drive.

 

So basically, what it boils down to is that they held Montreal to field goals every single time they had a whole field behind them and even when the offense / coaching staff set them up for failure, they still held all but twice.

 

So yes, I'd absolutely say it was a dominating performance that was robbed by the offense. 29 points allowed, 13 of which were off turnovers that gave Montreal the ball in FG territory and you can even tack on the other 7 that resulted in them starting in FG range because of a bad coaching call. That leaves 9 points that Montreal actually busted their ass to earn.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. Even better is adding in what the offense actually accomplished on their own getting those 33 points. 7 came from a punt return, 7 more came after the D set them up right near the goal line with an int return. 

you guys have your opinions, i have mine. i respect what you guys think but i simply don't agree.. im goimg to continue to believe that buck can and will get it done and hopefully he shows it..

 

If you could back up your opinions with even anecdotal evidence of trends in Pierce's game that support it, I'd listen. 

 

The trends I see.. inconsistent passing, not progressing through his reads, and leaving the pocket to take malicious hits... are neither good, nor inconsistent with 2012.

I'm not here to defend Buck, Lord knows I'm not a supporter, but he hit Watson often and Kohlert often and tried with Mathews, but Mathews didn't seem focused. He scrambled (not well..but) and executed a questionable game plan, but, he did enough to win us the game. 

While our D did win us the game, Buck did play a part.

 

I have said he needs to do better and he still does, but at least that gives us time for a back-up to emerge.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. Even better is adding in what the offense actually accomplished on their own getting those 33 points. 7 came from a punt return, 7 more came after the D set them up right near the goal line with an int return. 

Yes exactly.

 

You can't put the D on the field for 3 quarters of the game and expect them to not run out of wind.  I noticed in the last quarter, they were just running out of steam.  I bet had our offence just stayed on the field for a longer time during the game (and I mean just stayed on the field, they wouldn't even have needed to score points), our D would have shut out Montreal's offence in the last quarter and we probably would have won.

Crowton's play calling is sub par from what I've seen.  

 

I sooooo disagree with this statement.  I sat in the upper deck at IGF last Thursday, marvelling at how open our SB's were over the middle, all night.  I'd judge Crowton based on how well he creates opportunities for his offense to make plays... multiple open receivers on most plays is a damn good start. 

 

The Bombers' offensive woes thus far fall on the QB either a) making the safest read his first look, and not progressing through his reads. 

Goltz isn't ready to play.

hehe...neither is Buck

It's clear that as of today, Goltz isn't ready but part of my thinking is, in an alternate universe where Buck were the unseasoned QB and was forced into action these last two games, would any of you say that his performance indicated that he himself were ready?

 

I'm not saying that Goltz should necessarily start over Buck today as it would be an incredibly bold move but if one of the main concerns about Goltz is being green and possibly turning the ball over, it's not as if Buck has been a picture of ball security. Could Goltz turn it over more than 5 times himself in two games? Perhaps, but I would be willing to give it a shot since we have have won in spite of our QB play thus far. In fact, after yesterday's game, I am frustrated beyond belief that we let the first game get away.

the question is... can Goltz provide at least an average QB'ing ?

the question is... can Goltz provide at least an average QB'ing ?

 

We can go back and forth about this forever probably but the other side of this argument is, can Buck?

 

I suppose the question has to be decided whether we mean average, or league average. It's quite clear that in terms of the CFL, Buck is far and away the worst starting QB. He has had some average games, a few above average games and multiple below-average games but I suppose these vague classifications are upto the individual evaluating them.

 

Other than that, I suppose my argument is that even if Goltz turns out to be awful down the line, as of now he has more upside than Buck because let's be honest, Buck isn't getting any better. He will have some better games than other but he's not going to suddenly become a game-breaking passer at age 32. I mean it's a moot point for the most part because I doubt it happens but I still don't think that Goltz would cost us any more games than Buck would, and it also gives us a look at what we potentially have down the line.

I sooooo disagree with this statement.  I sat in the upper deck at IGF last Thursday, marvelling at how open our SB's were over the middle, all night.  I'd judge Crowton based on how well he creates opportunities for his offense to make plays... multiple open receivers on most plays is a damn good start. 

 

The Bombers' offensive woes thus far fall on the QB either a) making the safest read his first look, and not progressing through his reads. 

 

That play where Buck was intercepted was a classic example.  Buck had locked onto his receiver, and even with a DB waving his arms in his face, Buck still tried to make the throw.  He couldn't just pull the ball down and run, or take a sack, he tried to thread the needle through the waving arms because he couldn't process what was going on.  I'm a big fan of Buck's, but even I can see the signs that he isn't 100% in the head anymore.

Once again how many years does Goltz need before he is allowed to play

Once again how many years does Goltz need before he is allowed to play

Hopefully, when he is ready.

Hopefully, when he is ready.

Define ready?

He scores two TDs

Define ready?

He scores two TDs

How long is a piece of string?

He's ready when the coaches feel he is ready?

Not sure what your two TD comment means.

Define ready?

He scores two TDs

 

Yeah those QB sneaks definitely mean he's ready.  To do QB sneaks.

How long is a piece of string?

He's ready when the coaches feel he is ready?

Not sure what your two TD comment means.

The guy is money and unlike Pierce he only fumbled once!!!

The guy is money and unlike Pierce he only fumbled once!!!

On what? Four touches? Good call... Money. Yup.

On what? Four touches? Good call... Money. Yup.

In Goltz we trust!

Kids....

Goltz has the pro arm, but his passing accuracy is questionable. If Buck goes down and he goes in, it will be with the active support of Hall who is a much more accurate passer. Expect a tandem. Goltz was cut last season and accuracy was an issue. He returned because of injury. There has been improvement, but certainly not starter improvement...........his exhibition experience with the rookies did his development some damage. It was a bad decision by Burke. I believe he can improve.