Lawless article today:  http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/attention-oshea-fire-etcheverry-282801931.html

 

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

Lies. They stopped teams plenty only to have the offense send them right back on the field. 

 

No use in trying to help you see the truth.  You've already made your mind up and nothing's going to change it.  

 

 

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

Lies. They stopped teams plenty only to have the offense send them right back on the field. 

 

No use in trying to help you see the truth.  You've already made your mind up and nothing's going to change it.  

 

 

Pot meet kettle. When's the last time you've changed your position based on someone else's "truth".

 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

 

 

There, you just admitted that's stats are baseless.

And that's what I was pointing out.

You can hang onto the ball longer by running, but you also can win the game quicker by passing.

 

Stats are like laces that you can loop around and tie your shoes, but they're not necessary with loafers, where at least you can get some pennies. (huh)

 

 

 

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

Lies. They stopped teams plenty only to have the offense send them right back on the field. 

 

No use in trying to help you see the truth.  You've already made your mind up and nothing's going to change it.  

 

 

Pot meet kettle. When's the last time you've changed your position based on someone else's "truth".

 

sad part is tburg is right.

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

Lies. They stopped teams plenty only to have the offense send them right back on the field.

No use in trying to help you see the truth. You've already made your mind up and nothing's going to change it.

Pot meet kettle. When's the last time you've changed your position based on someone else's "truth".

sad part is tburg is right.

No... Not realllllllllllly... Anyone can bring up stats to prove their point by tweaking and omitting or including x or Y.. This is why stats are for losers..

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that. 

 

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

 

 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

 

 

There, you just admitted that's stats are baseless.

And that's what I was pointing out.

You can hang onto the ball longer by running, but you also can win the game quicker by passing.

 

Stats are like laces that you can loop around and tie your shoes, but they're not necessary with loafers, where at least you can get some pennies. (huh)

 

 

Only when they don't support your argument

I'd rather have Etch over Marcel

Many of us would... but there isn't anyone blindly and stupidly defending Marcel... Only Etch

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that. 

 

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

 

You think this is the first time one of his Defenses has had such bad statistics?

 

 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

 

 

There, you just admitted that's stats are baseless.

And that's what I was pointing out.

You can hang onto the ball longer by running, but you also can win the game quicker by passing.

 

Stats are like laces that you can loop around and tie your shoes, but they're not necessary with loafers, where at least you can get some pennies. (huh)

Stats only tell part of the story.  That doesn't mean they are baseless.

 

If you can beat a team by running, then that's what you do and that's what lots of teams did to us.  

 

Folks want it to be about fixing 1 thing and the other things don't really matter, but that's not the way football works. Stopping the run matters as does stopping the pass and stopping the big returns and being able to run and being able to pass and keeping your QB healthy and kicking FG's and everything else that goes into a football game.  

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that.

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

I'm confused. Are you suggesting Etch isn't Hitler?

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that. 

 

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

You love to characterize folks who disagree with you as anti-Etch haters.  I'm anti-losing and the reality is that Etch is a big part of the Bombers losing so often this year.  In your fantasy world, Etch will suddenly become a better DC who suddenly produces an above average defense when he hasn't done it in the past.  That's not likely to ever happen.

 

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that. 

 

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

You love to characterize folks who disagree with you as anti-Etch haters.  I'm anti-losing and the reality is that Etch is a big part of the Bombers losing so often this year.  In your fantasy world, Etch will suddenly become a better DC who suddenly produces an above average defense when he hasn't done it in the past.  That's not likely to ever happen.

 

No in my world the defense was good enough to win with and some improvements to the roster (notably defensive line and maybe not using a weakness like Sherman at linebacker) can improve the underlying stats and it is a much bigger priority to address the problems on the offense. You though would ***** and moan about anything that wasn't best in the league. I am simply arguing against this idea that the defense is a big reason for this team losing games. It isn't, plain and simply they gave the team chances to win more nights than not and if you can't see that then yes, you are just a blind Etch hater. 

 

 

 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

 

 

There, you just admitted that's stats are baseless.

And that's what I was pointing out.

You can hang onto the ball longer by running, but you also can win the game quicker by passing.

 

Stats are like laces that you can loop around and tie your shoes, but they're not necessary with loafers, where at least you can get some pennies. (huh)

Stats only tell part of the story.  That doesn't mean they are baseless.

 

If you can beat a team by running, then that's what you do and that's what lots of teams did to us.  

 

Folks want it to be about fixing 1 thing and the other things don't really matter, but that's not the way football works. Stopping the run matters as does stopping the pass and stopping the big returns and being able to run and being able to pass and keeping your QB healthy and kicking FG's and everything else that goes into a football game.  

 

 

I'm referring to facts are baseless, (bolded) when one only uses them to tell a part of the story…like you did.

You only quoted facts on the run..not on anything else.

 

Now you are admitting that they are only part of the story.

Then you go on to list everything else that is part of winning and losing football games, just like we've been pointing out, all along.(bolded)

 

 

 

 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

 

 

There, you just admitted that's stats are baseless.

And that's what I was pointing out.

You can hang onto the ball longer by running, but you also can win the game quicker by passing.

 

Stats are like laces that you can loop around and tie your shoes, but they're not necessary with loafers, where at least you can get some pennies. (huh)

Stats only tell part of the story.  That doesn't mean they are baseless.

 

If you can beat a team by running, then that's what you do and that's what lots of teams did to us.  

 

Folks want it to be about fixing 1 thing and the other things don't really matter, but that's not the way football works. Stopping the run matters as does stopping the pass and stopping the big returns and being able to run and being able to pass and keeping your QB healthy and kicking FG's and everything else that goes into a football game.  

 

 

I'm referring to facts are baseless, (bolded) when one only uses them to tell a part of the story…like you did.

You only quoted facts on the run..not on anything else.

 

Now you are admitting that they are only part of the story.

Then you go on to list everything else that is part of winning and losing football games, just like we've been pointing out, all along.(bolded)

 

Stats are facts.  Baseless means without foundation in fact.  Therefore stats, by definition, aren't baseless.

 

I never said stats tell the full story.  I showed the stats that point out our defense is sub-standard, below average, and quite frankly, not good enough.  You pointed out that they were above average against the pass, but that doesn't make the overall defense good enough.   Can't rush the passer, stop the run or get themselves off the field = below average overall.

You can use stats to prove anything, 14% of people know that. 

 

Some people though are just so anti-Etch they're willing to ignore reality and live in their own little fantasy world where the guy is literally Hitler

Nah, not Hitler. Mussolini. He was an Epic Fail.

There is a big difference between attacking the man and criticizing his work, and Etcheverry has left himself very much open to having his body of work criticized. Agreed that stats can be twisted, but no matter how you look at it, the Bomber defence collapsed for the same reasons that Etcheverry's defences have collapsed in the past.

The surest way to prove that you understand the current situation is to be able to predict the future of that situation, and many here predicted exactly how Etcheverry's defence would unravel over the course of the season. Complaining that we just didn't have the right kind of people on defence doesn't cut it- it would be little short of insane thinking to keep on trying to do the same thing when it isn't working for whatever reason. If a manager cannot adapt his/her strategy to take into account the people he/she actually has as opposed to those wished for in an ideal universe, then incompetence is at work. A musician who can play only one song doesn't survive (C&W music excepted).

I'm not a big Etch fan, but I can think of at least four home games off the top of my head where Willy & The O let us down instead of the D(both games against the Riders, Hamilton and BC).

And you can probably list games where you could say that Special Teams contributed towards a loss. The fact remains that every facet of a team game needs to be evaluated and stand or fail on the merits of their contribution to a game.

And you can probably list games where you could say that Special Teams contributed towards a loss. The fact remains that every facet of a team game needs to be evaluated and stand or fail on the merits of their contribution to a game.

You sure can, and when you add them up you can plainly see that the defense is responsible for less losses than any of the other facets of the team. 

 

And you can probably list games where you could say that Special Teams contributed towards a loss. The fact remains that every facet of a team game needs to be evaluated and stand or fail on the merits of their contribution to a game.

You sure can, and when you add them up you can plainly see that the defense is responsible for less losses than any of the other facets of the team. 

 

Your statistics can't fool me.

Well given that defence doesn't give away the ball on turnovers and ST and O does then the defence automatically is at an advantage as statistically speaking turnovers are one of the best indicators as to the outcome of a game.

Well given that defence doesn't give away the ball on turnovers and ST and O does then the defence automatically is at an advantage as statistically speaking turnovers are one of the best indicators as to the outcome of a game.

 

Advantage of what exactly?

They don't give away the ball, but who goes back on the field when the O and STs coughs up the ball?

 

 

 

 

Etcheverry's defence was terrible and was as big a reason as any for the Blue Bombers plummeting from an early 5-1 record to an unsatisfactory 7-11 finish. Likely the biggest.

 

 

Haha Gary Lawless is a *****. 

 

That aside, do you agree with him or not?  Etch was running the defense and it was not by any stretch a piece of art.

 

It just could be Miller and Walters will make the decision for him.

 

Here's hoping you're right on that...