Eat that doubters.  See what happens when you give your RB more then 10 carries and he actually knows how to run through holes?  14 attempts for 108 yards and 2 TD against one of the best teams (if not the best) in the league.  Grigsby was a fantastic receiver, but he would hesitate when those holes were opened for him.  Cotton see's the hole, no matter how small, and runs straight through it.  Loving me some Cotton again.

 

BC played terrible, and we still lost, again! At home! Again! Mostly due to a QB who panicks for no reason, is as slow as mollases and a coach that will not bench players playign terrible until it's too late.

 

Yep, BC didn't cover our receivers or anything like that.

 

 

They don't have the best pass D in the league either...nothing like that...

 

 

BC played terrible, and we still lost, again! At home! Again! Mostly due to a QB who panicks for no reason, is as slow as mollases and a coach that will not bench players playign terrible until it's too late.

 

Yep, BC didn't cover our receivers or anything like that.

 

 

They don't have the best pass D in the league either...nothing like that...

 

 

Yes, BC has the #1 pass defence in the league, and are #4 against the run….AND, 2nd best defence overall.

They had good coverage, especially in the 2nd half.

 

Having said that….

 

USABFan (metric version) brought up a good point in post #73, and that is : "there should at least be some kind of safety valve player to get the ball to"           

 

10 sacks.

They are not all on the O-Line, they get blame, of course, and Willy had chances to throw the ball away, but our OC chooses to have Cotton brush block instead of he, or the FB, slipping out for a safety valve for Willy to throw to.

It's got to be a better offensive alternative to what we've seen.

 

That's one reason why people complain about the OC…he doesn't adapt his game plan to make it easier for Willy to DUMP the BALL, when he's in trouble.

If it's good enough for every other QB, why don't we see it more?

 

 

 

BC played terrible, and we still lost, again! At home! Again! Mostly due to a QB who panicks for no reason, is as slow as mollases and a coach that will not bench players playign terrible until it's too late.

 

Yep, BC didn't cover our receivers or anything like that.

 

 

They don't have the best pass D in the league either...nothing like that...

 

 

Yes, BC has the #1 pass defence in the league, and are #4 against the run….AND, 2nd best defence overall.

They had good coverage, especially in the 2nd half.

 

Having said that….

 

USABFan (metric version) brought up a good point in post #73, and that is : "there should at least be some kind of safety valve player to get the ball to"           

 

10 sacks.

They are not all on the O-Line, they get blame, of course, and Willy had chances to throw the ball away, but our OC chooses to have Cotton brush block instead of he, or the FB, slipping out for a safety valve for Willy to throw to.

It's got to be a better offensive alternative to what we've seen.

 

That's one reason why people complain about the OC…he doesn't adapt his game plan to make it easier for Willy to DUMP the BALL, when he's in trouble.

If it's good enough for every other QB, why don't we see it more?

 

 

Indeed.  And have a slotback run a crossing route or curl if the RB is staying in to block.  I completely agree, I had a good view of most of those sacks.  Only 2 - 3 were on the OL.

gbill2004, on 26 Oct 2014 - 1:51 PM, said:gbill2004, on 26 Oct 2014 - 1:51 PM, said:

 

USABomberfan, on 26 Oct 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:USABomberfan, on 26 Oct 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Back to the topic at hand though

I hope to god Cotton can stay healthy all offseason and be ready to go come next year. Because if there's one thing we can hang our hat on, it's a new threat at RB we have now. I'm all for having multiple backs ready to go too to spell him off and keep him from burning out, but I like what we got with this guy. Despite our problems on the OL, having a threat for defenses to deal with coming out of the backfield can help give them a boost. It is a shame it took our coaching staff this long to see what all he could offer, but hopefully they stick with the guy next year, good to see something positive though after this rough season.

Why wouldn't he be able to stay healthy this offseason?

 

 

Well, guess I was meaning like through training camp and then preseason as well, though I guess that doesn't count as offseason.  It just seems like for the last 4 years or so we've had a different RB starting our season opener than the one we had finish the previous season:  Ex

 

2011 - Fred Reid

 

2012 - Bloi-Dei Dorzon   -  started because Chris Garrett our new found star got injured

 

2013 - Chad Simpson   -   he always seemed to be on that injury cusp year in and year out

 

2014 - Nic Grigsby  -   got the job because Cotton was out.

 

 

I don't know, I know probably about every team goes through a RB turnover more often than not at some point, but it'd be nice to see some continuity on our part in that department this next year with Cotton full ready to go week 1.

 

gbill2004, on 26 Oct 2014 - 1:51 PM, said:gbill2004, on 26 Oct 2014 - 1:51 PM, said:

 

USABomberfan, on 26 Oct 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:USABomberfan, on 26 Oct 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Back to the topic at hand though

I hope to god Cotton can stay healthy all offseason and be ready to go come next year. Because if there's one thing we can hang our hat on, it's a new threat at RB we have now. I'm all for having multiple backs ready to go too to spell him off and keep him from burning out, but I like what we got with this guy. Despite our problems on the OL, having a threat for defenses to deal with coming out of the backfield can help give them a boost. It is a shame it took our coaching staff this long to see what all he could offer, but hopefully they stick with the guy next year, good to see something positive though after this rough season.

Why wouldn't he be able to stay healthy this offseason?

 

 

Well, guess I was meaning like through training camp and then preseason as well, though I guess that doesn't count as offseason.  It just seems like for the last 4 years or so we've had a different RB starting our season opener than the one we had finish the previous season:  Ex

 

2011 - Fred Reid

 

2012 - Bloi-Dei Dorzon   -  started because Chris Garrett our new found star got injured

 

2013 - Chad Simpson   -   he always seemed to be on that injury cusp year in and year out

 

2014 - Nic Grigsby  -   got the job because Cotton was out.

 

 

I don't know, I know probably about every team goes through a RB turnover more often than not at some point, but it'd be nice to see some continuity on our part in that department this next year with Cotton full ready to go week 1.

 

Dorzon and Grigsby both started because both guys in front of them were hurt in preseason. Both were similarly bad, just that Grigsby managed a good first game and somehow kept the job. Cotton by rights earned the starting job in preseason, he was probably the best offensive player the Bombers had in both preseason games. Criminal that he didn't get in as soon as he was healthy. 

 

 

 

BC played terrible, and we still lost, again! At home! Again! Mostly due to a QB who panicks for no reason, is as slow as mollases and a coach that will not bench players playign terrible until it's too late.

 

Yep, BC didn't cover our receivers or anything like that.

 

 

They don't have the best pass D in the league either...nothing like that...

 

 

Yes, BC has the #1 pass defence in the league, and are #4 against the run….AND, 2nd best defence overall.

They had good coverage, especially in the 2nd half.

 

Having said that….

 

USABFan (metric version) brought up a good point in post #73, and that is : "there should at least be some kind of safety valve player to get the ball to"           

 

10 sacks.

They are not all on the O-Line, they get blame, of course, and Willy had chances to throw the ball away, but our OC chooses to have Cotton brush block instead of he, or the FB, slipping out for a safety valve for Willy to throw to.

It's got to be a better offensive alternative to what we've seen.

 

That's one reason why people complain about the OC…he doesn't adapt his game plan to make it easier for Willy to DUMP the BALL, when he's in trouble.

If it's good enough for every other QB, why don't we see it more?

 

I don't know if it always falls on the OC either for not having a safety valve. As I said in another post, my son and I have been discussing this for awhile. He thinks Drew is a gun slinger and prefers to sling it down the field. I see that also, especially when we're in second and three or five and don't run the ball when we had Grigsby playing. I was blaming the OC but not so sure I am right, and am coming around to the notion that Drew locks onto one receiver, preferably one further downfield which of course takes more time for the play to develop. I just hope that he learns to take the safety valve if one is provided to him, but at this point in time whether it be on the OC or him...it is doubtful.

I don't know if it always falls on the OC either for not having a safety valve. As I said in another post, my son and I have been discussing this for awhile. He thinks Drew is a gun slinger and prefers to sling it down the field. I see that also, especially when we're in second and three or five and don't run the ball when we had Grigsby playing. I was blaming the OC but not so sure I am right, and am coming around to the notion that Drew locks onto one receiver, preferably one further downfield which of course takes more time for the play to develop. I just hope that he learns to take the safety valve if one is provided to him, but at this point in time whether it be on the OC or him...it is doubtful.

 

 

No matter how you look at it, it leads back to the OC or the QB Coach.

As many sacks as we are facing each game, somebody has to step up and say "let's fix this".

And if some of the fault leads back to Willy, then somebody has to step up and say"let's fix this".

 

There is no way there should have been 10 sacks in that game, simply no way.

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

We win on Labour Day and the home game against Hamilton easily if he plays. I'm sure there are a few others where we were in second and long all game that he would have prevented.

Lost about 6 or 7 games by a touchdown or less... Surely playing Cotton in a few of those games makes a difference.

 

Really the Difference between 10-8 or at worse 9-9 and 7-11 is probably a few of those games we lost by less than a touchdown and had absolutely zero threat of a run game at all. 

Lost about 6 or 7 games by a touchdown or less... Surely playing Cotton in a few of those games makes a difference.

 

Really the Difference between 10-8 or at worse 9-9 and 7-11 is probably a few of those games we lost by less than a touchdown and had absolutely zero threat of a run game at all. 

What might have been if they'd scored late against Hamilton and got a stop on labour day...

 

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

We win on Labour Day and the home game against Hamilton easily if he plays. I'm sure there are a few others where we were in second and long all game that he would have prevented.

 

 

Or if we made the other teams running attack as useless as ours we could have won probably all our games this year.

 

 

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

We win on Labour Day and the home game against Hamilton easily if he plays. I'm sure there are a few others where we were in second and long all game that he would have prevented.

 

 

Or if we made the other teams running attack as useless as ours we could have won probably all our games this year.

 

Calgary ran wild yesterday on us, but time of possesion in the first half was 16 minutes to 14 minutes for Calgary. 

 

I think you are making things to simple here, it's not about just the running game against us, it's about us turning the ball over at times, it's about play calling, it's about a lack of a run game so teams could send the house and beat our qb up cuz they knew we couldn't run. It's not as simple as just picking one aspect and saying that's the problem. It's a lot of issues.. Lost 6 or 7 by a touchdown or less and in most those games turned the ball over a heck of a lot of times, more than 1 or 2 times that's for sure.

 

You don't think those turnovers played a bigger role? Yeah sask ran wild on us, so did a few teams but 6 or 7 games lost by a touchdown or less and turned the ball over a ton of times in those games? Don't think that played a little role at all? 

 

I'm not a huge fan of using stats because it doesn't really tell you the whole story but... it's been pretty proven that if you don't turn the ball over, you win.

 

We don't turn the ball over in those games we lost by a touchdown or less and we more than likely win, even if the other team ran the ball down our throats. 

 

 

 

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

We win on Labour Day and the home game against Hamilton easily if he plays. I'm sure there are a few others where we were in second and long all game that he would have prevented.

 

 

Or if we made the other teams running attack as useless as ours we could have won probably all our games this year.

 

Calgary ran wild yesterday on us, but time of possesion in the first half was 16 minutes to 14 minutes for Calgary. 

 

I think you are making things to simple here, it's not about just the running game against us, it's about us turning the ball over at times, it's about play calling, it's about a lack of a run game so teams could send the house and beat our qb up cuz they knew we couldn't run. It's not as simple as just picking one aspect and saying that's the problem. It's a lot of issues.. Lost 6 or 7 by a touchdown or less and in most those games turned the ball over a heck of a lot of times, more than 1 or 2 times that's for sure.

 

You don't think those turnovers played a bigger role? Yeah sask ran wild on us, so did a few teams but 6 or 7 games lost by a touchdown or less and turned the ball over a ton of times in those games? Don't think that played a little role at all? 

 

I'm not a huge fan of using stats because it doesn't really tell you the whole story but... it's been pretty proven that if you don't turn the ball over, you win.

 

We don't turn the ball over in those games we lost by a touchdown or less and we more than likely win, even if the other team ran the ball down our throats. 

 

 

lol, of course I agree with you but too many times people just look at one aspect and say that's why we lost. Nobody can predict the future and doing one thing better won't always give you the results you expect. Butterfly affect is all I'm saying but some would have you believe that you can disregard other problems as not being substantial contributors to wins and losses and I call BS.

 

 

 

 

Man Cotton is light years better then Grigsby... So sad that he didn't play the full season because we would of had a tonne more yards..

We win on Labour Day and the home game against Hamilton easily if he plays. I'm sure there are a few others where we were in second and long all game that he would have prevented.

 

 

Or if we made the other teams running attack as useless as ours we could have won probably all our games this year.

 

Calgary ran wild yesterday on us, but time of possesion in the first half was 16 minutes to 14 minutes for Calgary. 

 

I think you are making things to simple here, it's not about just the running game against us, it's about us turning the ball over at times, it's about play calling, it's about a lack of a run game so teams could send the house and beat our qb up cuz they knew we couldn't run. It's not as simple as just picking one aspect and saying that's the problem. It's a lot of issues.. Lost 6 or 7 by a touchdown or less and in most those games turned the ball over a heck of a lot of times, more than 1 or 2 times that's for sure.

 

You don't think those turnovers played a bigger role? Yeah sask ran wild on us, so did a few teams but 6 or 7 games lost by a touchdown or less and turned the ball over a ton of times in those games? Don't think that played a little role at all? 

 

I'm not a huge fan of using stats because it doesn't really tell you the whole story but... it's been pretty proven that if you don't turn the ball over, you win.

 

We don't turn the ball over in those games we lost by a touchdown or less and we more than likely win, even if the other team ran the ball down our throats. 

 

 

lol, of course I agree with you but too many times people just look at one aspect and say that's why we lost. Nobody can predict the future and doing one thing better won't always give you the results you expect. Butterfly affect is all I'm saying but some would have you believe that you can disregard other problems as not being substantial contributors to wins and losses and I call BS.

 

Yeah, it's definitely not just one area. Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks, Rushing against... Red Zone production,  Tackling at times. It all adds up for sure. 

Cotton would of made a difference.. The fact that he could continue running after being touched would of given us much more yards.

Grigsby should of played receiveand nothing eelse