Amidst all the positivity and hope swirling around the Bombers, certain things about the current regime continue to leave me quite concerned:

MB's schemes: given what took place in Montreal back in '07, why was it not recognized that his scheme was a problem in terms of QB protection?  I realize that our interior OL has been weak, but the scheme did very little to help with that.

Picard: why was it not recognized that he could no longer be an everyday starter?  Why was this not properly assessed before he was signed?

As for the current free agency bonanza, I'm cautiously optimistic.  I still remember the 'amazing work' Taman did during 2008 free agency.  

Somehow, there always seems to be one area of the team where they are trying to shove square pegs into round holes.  Bomber management's apparent lack of awareness in these scenarios leaves me quite concerned. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

If we could have gotten bourke we'd a just kept him and byrant and had a good line for once.

22 hours ago, J5V said:

Shoulda grabbed Bourke, dealt Bryant for another national.

You're living in fantasyland.

On 2/12/2016 at 7:13 PM, J5V said:

Shoulda grabbed Bourke, dealt Bryant for another national.

You keep saying this and as JBR said, you're living in a dream world. Other than "I've heard of him", what makes you think Bourke was worth pursuing? He's had a big drop off in play and I wouldn't trade Bryant for him straight up to be honest. 

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

You're living in fantasyland.

You've tried to stop my brilliant ideas with common sense a thousand times. Has it ever worked? No. 

48 minutes ago, Mike said:

You keep saying this and as JBR said, you're living in a dream world. Other than "I've heard of him", what makes you think Bourke was worth pursuing? He's had a big drop off in play and I wouldn't trade Bryant for him straight up to be honest. 

The answer is simple.  Bourke isn't a Bomber, Bryant is, therefore Bourke>Bryant.  

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

You keep saying this and as JBR said, you're living in a dream world. Other than "I've heard of him", what makes you think Bourke was worth pursuing? He's had a big drop off in play and I wouldn't trade Bryant for him straight up to be honest. 

LOL! I've told you this before but just for you I'll say it again ... he's a N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L. I don't mean to shout but you do understand there are advantages to that, right?

51 minutes ago, J5V said:

LOL! I've told you this before but just for you I'll say it again ... he's a N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L. I don't mean to shout but you do understand there are advantages to that, right?

As Mike said before, does that make him play  better?

1 hour ago, J5V said:

LOL! I've told you this before but just for you I'll say it again ... he's a N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L. I don't mean to shout but you do understand there are advantages to that, right?

Your initial comment was that our line needed to perform better. What part of a Canadian passport makes a player perform better? The advantage is the flexibility gained elsewhere but that does SFA for the performance of our line itself, which was your whole concern in the first place.

So again, I'll ask - when you're asking for a higher level of performance from our offensive line, what would pursuing Bourke have accomplished?

Not to mention that Bryant only makes two-thirds of what Bourke does. That's a significant salary difference.

And you'd probably have a hell of a time trading Bryant for  a useful non-import player too.  And the chances of Bourke signing anywhere in the West were almost nil.  Basically every team in the East would have had to take a pass on him.

I get that some people are probably living in the past and think you have to have X number of National oline. I get it. That's how it used to be.  But thing is the D's around the league have evolved and gotten better. DL are now mostly made of dominating Americans trained in the NCAA taking on cis trained CDNS.  You have exceptions like Laurent but he's not CIS trained. What that means to me and what that tells me is.... sure having 3 or 4 or 5 Canadian starters on the Oline would be nice but.... it's not necessary cuz now you see CDN rbs. Receivers. DE. DT. LB.  DB. 

 

I guess put it this way.... you have to start a minimum of 7 Canadian players right.  Who says most have to be on the oline tho? It wouldn't surprise me if we go 3 internationals on the oline and 2 nationals in Chungh and Goossen. And I think what you will see soon is lots of teams going to more international based Oline because quite simply.... your QB is your biggest investment and I'm order to keep that investment upright... why not play your national talent elsewhere. 

Let's look at this year's potential National starters 

RB Harris 

OL Chungh Goossen Neufeld 

WR Kohlert 

DL Shologan Westerman 

LB Hurl 

DB Bucknor 

S Waggoner

That's 10 guys who can start 

Let's just pretend Waggoner doesn't start... you got 9 still... Hurl?  That's 8 still....  Neufeld?  Still 7 starting. 

Meaning 3 internationals on the oline doesn't seem to be that far fetched 

 

What they have done this week in signing Shologan and Harris is give themselves some massive ratio flexibility 

Edited February 13, 20169 yr by Goalie

11 hours ago, holoman said:

As Mike said before, does that make him play  better?

As I said before, given two players of similar ability I'd choose the national every time for the obvious benefits, especially given Bryant's performance last season and the need we have to improve our OL. I'd really like to see what Willy can do behind a rock-solid OL and the new targets he has to throw to.

I believe lack of Bellefuile should improve the O line play.  aside from that, I'm not sure we want to be paying  a high amount of money for a 33 year old who's play is dwindling all on the facet that he's a national.

Bryant played some RT in Calgary so we could easily play both Bourke and Bryant.

I'd still like to see us take a shot at Joel Figueroa.  Jace Daniels hasn't really proven anything so I'd like to see some experienced competition in there for him.

On 2/13/2016 at 7:28 PM, J5V said:

You've tried to stop my brilliant ideas with common sense a thousand times. Has it ever worked? No. 

On 2/10/2016 at 5:33 PM, Mark H. said:

Amidst all the positivity and hope swirling around the Bombers, certain things about the current regime continue to leave me quite concerned:

MB's schemes: given what took place in Montreal back in '07, why was it not recognized that his scheme was a problem in terms of QB protection?  I realize that our interior OL has been weak, but the scheme did very little to help with that.

Picard: why was it not recognized that he could no longer be an everyday starter?  Why was this not properly assessed before he was signed?

As for the current free agency bonanza, I'm cautiously optimistic.  I still remember the 'amazing work' Taman did during 2008 free agency.  

Somehow, there always seems to be one area of the team where they are trying to shove square pegs into round holes.  Bomber management's apparent lack of awareness in these scenarios leaves me quite concerned. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

 

 

MB had mixed reviews, he was oc of a deadily off in sask at one point. There werent and generally arent a lot of high quality OCs easily available. They could have fired him earlier, but it seems that mid season fires isnt how this group running the team does things.

Picard, they took a flyer on him. Lets not forget we didnt have any guys that took his job. They needed to do some thing on the OL, and got what was available.  Unfortunately he was done, and there just isnt any fast easy way to build a good OL.

The off season is still young, lots of time to fix things even more. But many times teams have been off season champions and done poorly come the regular season. Nothing will fix that feeling other then regular season wins. 

You allways have some of that try and fix it in football. With 18 regular season games and the constraints of the ni/imp system. Some times it works, some times it doesnt. Trying to fit in carries for mike sellers and charles roberts, trying to move guys from db to lb etc.

MB never had a deadly offense in Saskatchewan.

On 2/11/2016 at 6:28 PM, do or die said:

Some of the evaluations of Quarterbacks, and import OL round these parts......pretty questionable as well.    The eye is squarely on this scouting staff - we really need some followup to the stuff we did this week, in free agency.   Don't want to hear about recruiting, anymore.....just want to see it.

Any word if the scouting staff was upgraded?  If not, I wonder how they magically acquire a sharper eye for talent when their track record would indicate that they're near blind or bloody lazy.  This group of scouts has not shown a lick of ability in locating and evaluating Import QB's. receivers or O-linemen.  Thus Walter's has had to rely heavily on acquiring talent previously discovered by other teams in order to build a team good enough to save his own job and that of his cronies.

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 20169 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

 

It was glaringly obvious to plenty of people, that Marcel should of closely followed Etch out the door, before last season.....we didn't -not sure what the rationale was there.....and we paid for it.  It was deadly...as in killing our O.

Edited February 15, 20169 yr by do or die

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 8:37 PM, Mike said:

Your initial comment was that our line needed to perform better. What part of a Canadian passport makes a player perform better? The advantage is the flexibility gained elsewhere but that does SFA for the performance of our line itself, which was your whole concern in the first place.

So again, I'll ask - when you're asking for a higher level of performance from our offensive line, what would pursuing Bourke have accomplished?

Okay Mike, so you obviously don't like Bourque but I don't think he's as bad as you claim he is. We already have a pretty good LT in Stanley Bryant so I couldn't see us ever signing Bourque. Bryant is younger than Bourque (33) & still should have a few good years left in him. This may be the last contract Bourque signs. Thing of it is, he was never going to sign out West with any team. He wanted to stay in the East. Bombers had practically a zero chance to sign him so it all really doesn't matter.

Edited February 15, 20169 yr by iso_55

Ray Bourque?  Or Josh Bourke? ? 

 

Josh signed with the argos on day 1 of FA frenzy lol. Talk about beating a dead horse 

Edited February 16, 20169 yr by Goalie

If we can develop 3 Nationals to play well on the OL then we need Danny McManus to find us 2 Internationals who can play well. If there's one thing we've seen with the Bombers it's just how long it takes to build an OL with 5 or even 4 Nationals thru the Draft & free agency. That's why Scouting has to find players down south to compliment the work Walters does. It would be nice to have 5 Nationals all starting on our OL but that will still take years.

Edited February 17, 20169 yr by iso_55

The days of 5 national guys on the online are done I think only two teams go 5 nationals on the line

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:07 AM, iso_55 said:

Okay Mike, so you obviously don't like Bourque but I don't think he's as bad as you claim he is. We already have a pretty good LT in Stanley Bryant so I couldn't see us ever signing Bourque. Bryant is younger than Bourque (33) & still should have a few good years left in him. This may be the last contract Bourque signs. Thing of it is, he was never going to sign out West with any team. He wanted to stay in the East. Bombers had practically a zero chance to sign him so it all really doesn't matter.

Ray Bourque would get murdered on our O-line

IMO the only way we can possibly look at the changes is positively......MB's long overdue departure has occurred and we have replaced him with arguably the best available OC in LaPo. The signings in free agency have also seriously improved our team and I'm excited for the season!