Westy Sucks Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 MOS spoke glowingly of Jake Thomas today in his press conference. To be fair, MOS speaks glowingly of everyone. Exactly. What is coach supposed to say? The truth? That Jake Thomas is nowhere near starter level. At best a back up that can play maybe 10-15 snaps a game. That's an awfully interesting assessment to give of a guy who has played more snaps than that in the past at a fairly decent level. Yea I hear you there, but decent is just that...decent. Nothing special. And we need more special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westy Sucks Posted June 6, 2014 Report Share Posted June 6, 2014 MOS spoke glowingly of Jake Thomas today in his press conference. To be fair, MOS speaks glowingly of everyone. Exactly. What is coach supposed to say? The truth? That Jake Thomas is nowhere near starter level. At best a back up that can play maybe 10-15 snaps a game. He makes plays http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/rookie-defensive-lineman-thomas-making-big-impact-with-bombers/article4445701/ Just like Wayne Weathers, Dave Donaldson (always around the loose ball) and other spot Canadians we've had in the past. You need these types of guys to win. We need better. Weathers and Donaldson???? yeah ok... those are as ordinary as it gets DR. CFL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. blitzmore and SPuDS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. They're evaluating everybody...get over it! Mr Dee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted June 7, 2014 Report Share Posted June 7, 2014 Plus our non-imp prospects ain't going anywhere soon, we can't afford them to.. Until other cuts show up, what we got is what we got and we have a lot of film and in practice with em (minus the new kids who are safe im sure until after camp) so wouldn't more time be dedicated to the guys most likely to protect our QBs blind side and rushes off the edge a wise choice? Especislly so, considering the inexperience with QBs, Rbs, possibly centres, receivers and OCs? Start from the outside and work your way in with the exception of centre.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 I've got a feeling that we will start the usual 3-NI and 2-IMP on the OL plus we will burn 1 DI spot on an OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 I've got a feeling that we will start the usual 3-NI and 2-IMP on the OL plus we will burn 1 DI spot on an OL. highly unlikely we burn a DI on an import OL. Talk about wasting roster spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 I've got a feeling that we will start the usual 3-NI and 2-IMP on the OL plus we will burn 1 DI spot on an OL. Not impossible, but to me it seems more likely we use a DI spot for that if we're starting 3 import Olinemen. Traditionally there isn't a lot of rotating of Olinemen to keep them fresh; it's usually an injury situation. Burning one DI spot backing up 2 players and likely not getting any special teams play out of that guy is questionable use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 I've got a feeling that we will start the usual 3-NI and 2-IMP on the OL plus we will burn 1 DI spot on an OL. Not impossible, but to me it seems more likely we use a DI spot for that if we're starting 3 import Olinemen. Traditionally there isn't a lot of rotating of Olinemen to keep them fresh; it's usually an injury situation. Burning one DI spot backing up 2 players and likely not getting any special teams play out of that guy is questionable use. DI'ing an O lineman means that our NI OL's aren't even good enough to be a backup. If we start 3 NI OL, and I really doubt we will, we will back them up with an NI. Floyd 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Goossen doesn't start at Centre, you pretty much have to pencil him in at RG to get him reps. At least, that's what makes sense to me... but I would have had Pencer at RG for the second half of last season too. Moving Neufeld to RG pretty much makes the Sask trade a bit of a waste. Trading three second round picks over two drafts to fill the RG position... ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Goossen doesn't start at Centre, you pretty much have to pencil him in at RG to get him reps. At least, that's what makes sense to me... but I would have had Pencer at RG for the second half of last season too. Moving Neufeld to RG pretty much makes the Sask trade a bit of a waste. Trading three second round picks over two drafts to fill the RG position... ridiculous. The dogs from Regina will be howling with laughter if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 3 second round picks? was the trade not hall and a 2nd rounder to sask for neufeld? where are these other 2 picks that we traded to take an oline? unless you are refering to trading our 2 3rd's for sasks second to take briggs, in which case, they are not related at all. I'm not sure why people do this sometimes. The trade wasn't 3 second rounders for neufeld It was alex hall (who isn't in the cfl anymore) and 1 2nd to sask for Neufeld. rather have the 2nd round pick in a weak draft where that player wouldn't be starting anywhere? right guard or tackle, who cares, he's starting, that's all that matters. oh wait, pre season game 1 depth chart says he isn't.. must panic based on 1 pre-season game!! blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 3 second round picks? was the trade not hall and a 2nd rounder to sask for neufeld? where are these other 2 picks that we traded to take an oline? unless you are refering to trading our 2 3rd's for sasks second to take briggs, in which case, they are not related at all. I'm not sure why people do this sometimes. The trade wasn't 3 second rounders for neufeld It was alex hall (who isn't in the cfl anymore) and 1 2nd to sask for Neufeld. rather have the 2nd round pick in a weak draft where that player wouldn't be starting anywhere? right guard or tackle, who cares, he's starting, that's all that matters. oh wait, pre season game 1 depth chart says he isn't.. must panic based on 1 pre-season game!! Plus we got Sask's 4th rounder next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 3 second round picks? was the trade not hall and a 2nd rounder to sask for neufeld? where are these other 2 picks that we traded to take an oline? unless you are refering to trading our 2 3rd's for sasks second to take briggs, in which case, they are not related at all. I'm not sure why people do this sometimes. The trade wasn't 3 second rounders for neufeld It was alex hall (who isn't in the cfl anymore) and 1 2nd to sask for Neufeld. rather have the 2nd round pick in a weak draft where that player wouldn't be starting anywhere? right guard or tackle, who cares, he's starting, that's all that matters. oh wait, pre season game 1 depth chart says he isn't.. must panic based on 1 pre-season game!! a. we traded two second rounders to end up with Pencer (our first ratio breaking RT) b. a 2nd round pick (Dylan Ainsworth) would have been rotating/starting this year for the bombers c. Neufeld looked good at RT and very average at RG in Sask d. your post sounds like you're the one who is panicking I'm not in any 'panic' - that's an old ploy on these boards when someone points out a concern on the team. Our team does not look 'great' on paper, panic won't change that. I am hopeful that Pencer or Neufeld will get reps at RT because that's why they were brought here. Why trade our 2nd rounder if we're only starting 3 (or possibly 2) NI on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 3 second round picks? was the trade not hall and a 2nd rounder to sask for neufeld? where are these other 2 picks that we traded to take an oline? unless you are refering to trading our 2 3rd's for sasks second to take briggs, in which case, they are not related at all. I'm not sure why people do this sometimes. The trade wasn't 3 second rounders for neufeld It was alex hall (who isn't in the cfl anymore) and 1 2nd to sask for Neufeld. rather have the 2nd round pick in a weak draft where that player wouldn't be starting anywhere? right guard or tackle, who cares, he's starting, that's all that matters. oh wait, pre season game 1 depth chart says he isn't.. must panic based on 1 pre-season game!! a. we traded two second rounders to end up with Pencer (our first ratio breaking RT) b. a 2nd round pick (Dylan Ainsworth) would have been rotating/starting this year for the bombers c. Neufeld looked good at RT and very average at RG in Sask d. your post sounds like you're the one who is panicking I'm not in any 'panic' - that's an old ploy on these boards when someone points out a concern on the team. Our team does not look 'great' on paper, panic won't change that. I am hopeful that Pencer or Neufeld will get reps at RT because that's why they were brought here. Why trade our 2nd rounder if we're only starting 3 (or possibly 2) NI on the line. I'd switch that to very average and pretty bad respectively, and call that evaluation fairly generous. For Neufeld it's tackle or nothing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. TC is just a week-old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 8, 2014 Report Share Posted June 8, 2014 For me, five minutes evaluating a three import OL is a 'large portion'... also known as a complete waste of time. Not sure why everyone is so up in arms about the fact that I want Pencer, Neufeld, Everett and Goossen to get as many reps as possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I've got a feeling that we will start the usual 3-NI and 2-IMP on the OL plus we will burn 1 DI spot on an OL. Not impossible, but to me it seems more likely we use a DI spot for that if we're starting 3 import Olinemen. Traditionally there isn't a lot of rotating of Olinemen to keep them fresh; it's usually an injury situation. Burning one DI spot backing up 2 players and likely not getting any special teams play out of that guy is questionable use. DI'ing an O lineman means that our NI OL's aren't even good enough to be a backup. If we start 3 NI OL, and I really doubt we will, we will back them up with an NI. We have 4 DI's this year. We can be creative if we choose. No one seems to be giving much thought as to why the Bombers might use 3 import Olinemen. Obviously they've made no decision on it yet but they are giving the following question a lot of thought: Will we get more production from our offence with a third import receiver or will we get more production from having the best possible offensive line? What might we get out of that 3 import Oline that we would not get otherwise? - QB who is still healthy come the August long.weekend - QB who has more than two steamboats to throw, even when the defensive is sending full blitzes - Non-sucky running game that easily converts second and twos What might we get out of that third import receiver that we would not get otherwise? - 400 yards more than Feoli-G over the course of the season? So a) there might be a method to what Floyd considers madness, and if the Bombers are giving protection that high of a priority, then using the extra DI spot on an import Olineman is entirely within the realm of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbrg Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Alrighty. Myself and 9 CFL teams will agree and you will disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Alrighty. Myself and 9 CFL teams will agree and you will disagree. I guess that's why Toronto is starting five Canadians on their OL tomorrow? Very cagey Barker... very cagey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That does not change the fact that we are spending practice time evaluating import OL at the expense of playing CK, Pencer (before the flu), Everett, Goossen, etc... The "fact" you are arguing is incorrect - this is not practise time. It's training camp. Players are being evaluated to decide who will make the team. If you feel this is unimportant we could have stuck with last years roster. If you feel that spending a large portion of training camp evaluating our backup import Olineman instead of our NI prospects, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Alrighty. Myself and 9 CFL teams will agree and you will disagree. I guess that's why Toronto is starting five Canadians on their OL tomorrow? Very cagey Barker... very cagey. we aren't Toronto though so that's your first mistake right there. We dont have the non import depth they do, we don't have the non import depth of any team, maybe ottawa but it's close. Gotta ask once again, you are all over the place here, going from should have taken coombs to now going on about non import offensive line? so which is it actually? did you want coombs or do you want us to have non import olinemen? what did you expect walters to do in one off season actually? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'd like to see us give our Canadian Lineman a lot of reps as well. Im not sure why everybody is so up in arms about Floyd wanting us to try and get more development time in for our Canuck Oline Also, can we please drop this whole 3 Import Oline talk, It's just not going to happen. Maybe if we still had Muamba, but we don't... We just don't have the horses on the other parts of the team to make that even remotely possible. We're going to be weak enough as it is, never mind forcing us to start Neufeld at MLB with Thomas at DT lol. That would be a joke. Westy Sucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'd like to see us give our Canadian Lineman a lot of reps as well. Im not sure why everybody is so up in arms about Floyd wanting us to try and get more development time in for our Canuck Oline Also, can we please drop this whole 3 Import Oline talk, It's just not going to happen. Maybe if we still had Muamba, but we don't... We just don't have the horses on the other parts of the team to make that even remotely possible. We're going to be weak enough as it is, never mind forcing us to start Neufeld at MLB with Thomas at DT lol. That would be a joke. Neufeld at MLB! A 300 pound MLB will sure be interesting! Etch is taking his insanity up a level! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Maybe 3 import OL would work if we start Volny at RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now