kelownabomberfan Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Goltz gets to play against a bad defence everyday at practice....then when he plays against a good one it's tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 So he's a guy who can rack up great stats against laughably terrible defences. which is STILL better than what we have right now. The guys we got now put up terrible stats against crappy defenses too. Elliott's not coming back. Let it go. You'll feel much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 So he's a guy who can rack up great stats against laughably terrible defences. which is STILL better than what we have right now. The guys we got now put up terrible stats against crappy defenses too. Elliott's not coming back. Let it go. You'll feel much better. Not until someone on the roster outperforms him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 So he's a guy who can rack up great stats against laughably terrible defences. which is STILL better than what we have right now. The guys we got now put up terrible stats against crappy defenses too. Elliott's not coming back. Let it go. You'll feel much better. Not until someone on the roster outperforms him. I miss Tom Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Oh man... back in this ridiculous - he wasn't good enough for another team debate... Bring him back, what is the harm? Maybe he will succeed under MB... All I know is that Elliott could sell the playaction and that made our OL look better - I mean look at us with QBs who can't... But I guess Levi Brown is the answer now... cough cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 All I know is that Elliott could sell the playaction and that made our OL look better - I mean look at us with QBs who can't... just to be fair I think Goltz can run the playaction effectively as well, but really it should be the easiest thing in the world to make play action work on this team. Opposing defenses are so keyed on the run game it should work all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 All I know is that Elliott could sell the playaction and that made our OL look better - I mean look at us with QBs who can't... just to be fair I think Goltz can run the playaction effectively as well, but really it should be the easiest thing in the world to make play action work on this team. Opposing defenses are so keyed on the run game it should work all the time. The key to play action isn't running the ball a lot, it's having a successful run game so the defense has to respect it. Our run game on the whole would be considered average I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Bishop won 6 games for us, might as well bring him back too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 I'm amused by how Goltz is praised for losing every game he has started despite bristling with mediocrity, excused for throwing interceptions, yet Elliot, who's actually WON games for the Bombers (throwing >400yds in the process), has 2 POTW awards and had a higher qb rating than ANY of our current qbs is nfg. His 'propensity to throw INT's in the red zone' is inexperience, forcing the ball, same thing as Goltz. That comes with more experience and coaching. Elliot obviously has an issue with attitude or whatever. But there is no disputing that he is a more productive quarterback at this point. Give the guy a football, a qb coach that will keep him on track, and I still think he's better than anything we have now. Elliott sucks. He would add no value to our team at all other than a very marginal improvement at QB. I do agree with you that I shake my head in disbelief at the complete double standard people are passing off between Goltz and Elliott though. Goltz and Elliott arrived at around the same time and are almost equal in experience level. For some reason people are suggesting that more time would make Goltz this great QB, yet when the subject of Elliott comes up they believe he had his chance and sucked. They are half right I suppose, but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to lobby for patience with Goltz then you shouldn't be knocking Elliott in the same breath....they are literally almost equal in experience level. Personally, I don't believe either of them will ever amount to anything in this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 I'm amused by how Goltz is praised for losing every game he has started despite bristling with mediocrity, excused for throwing interceptions, yet Elliot, who's actually WON games for the Bombers (throwing >400yds in the process), has 2 POTW awards and had a higher qb rating than ANY of our current qbs is nfg. His 'propensity to throw INT's in the red zone' is inexperience, forcing the ball, same thing as Goltz. That comes with more experience and coaching. Elliot obviously has an issue with attitude or whatever. But there is no disputing that he is a more productive quarterback at this point. Give the guy a football, a qb coach that will keep him on track, and I still think he's better than anything we have now. Elliott sucks. He would add no value to our team at all other than a very marginal improvement at QB. I do agree with you that I shake my head in disbelief at the complete double standard people are passing off between Goltz and Elliott though. Goltz and Elliott arrived at around the same time and are almost equal in experience level. For some reason people are suggesting that more time would make Goltz this great QB, yet when the subject of Elliott comes up they believe he had his chance and sucked. They are half right I suppose, but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to lobby for patience with Goltz then you shouldn't be knocking Elliott in the same breath....they are literally almost equal in experience level. Personally, I don't believe either of them will ever amount to anything in this league. agree wholeheartedly with your final point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 they are literally almost equal in experience level. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 All I know is that Elliott could sell the playaction and that made our OL look better - I mean look at us with QBs who can't... just to be fair I think Goltz can run the playaction effectively as well, but really it should be the easiest thing in the world to make play action work on this team. Opposing defenses are so keyed on the run game it should work all the time. The key to play action isn't running the ball a lot, it's having a successful run game so the defense has to respect it. Our run game on the whole would be considered average I believe. overall you may be right, but with the Bombers, it's not about the run game being successful, it's about teams having absolutely no respect for the passing game and knowing that if they stop the run the Bombers offense is dead in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. What has he shown that makes him deserving of future starts? I am not being sarcastic, I just don't see what others are seeing in him. I have not seen anything, in my mind, that shows he may be close to being a good QB. Please explain what you are seeing that makes you believe this guy is even close to being a consistent starter in this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GCn20 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. Here is the big misconception that people are trying to sell. This myth that 6 more starts will suddenly make him this great QB is unrealistic imo. He has started a few games now and has not shown any ability to even come close to winning. It's not like he is tantalizing us with 350 yard games but just barely coming out on the short end of the victory column...his stats are well below average and what will change in 6 games from now? Will he suddenly learn how to throw accurately on the roll out? His flaws are not from a lack of understanding of the game. By all accounts he is making the right reads. His problems are mechanical and that doesn't go away in a half season or with more starts. Most QBs who exhibit poor mechanics are never able to fix them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 The whole point of playing Goltz and giving him starts is to find out what he's got and to see how much he has progressed from game to game. It was necessary to get off the Buck bandwagon. And I think you are selling Goltz short in his learning curve. He is progressing. He may not be a runaway best seller, but the exact point of him playing lets us see where he is going, especially with a somewhat improved game-calling scheme. The 1st half of last week's game was as good a half as we've seen all year, and I know that's not saying much...but I'll say it anyways...much. He's got to get to the next level however, and win that game. It didn't happen last week, but for a while there, it looked like it could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. so 9 starts is enough to judge whether a guy can be a CFL qb? Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. so 9 starts is enough to judge whether a guy can be a CFL qb? Get real. What's the correct number? That wasn't necessarily what I meant anyway. It was the comparison between Goltz & Elliott that I was referencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. so 9 starts is enough to judge whether a guy can be a CFL qb? Get real. What's the correct number? That wasn't necessarily what I meant anyway. It was the comparison between Goltz & Elliott that I was referencing. but even using that comparison! 9 games is enough for Elliott to be thrown on the scrap heap? That's not even a full season! I don't think there is a magic number but it's more than 9 ******* games on a team with plenty of other issues. People are too quick to throw people away here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Elliott has 6 more CFL starts than Goltz does. If Goltz is given 6 more games and hasn't progressed further than what Elliott showed us he should be gone too. To this point I think he's shown enough that he should keep getting the starts. so 9 starts is enough to judge whether a guy can be a CFL qb? Get real. What's the correct number?That wasn't necessarily what I meant anyway. It was the comparison between Goltz & Elliott that I was referencing. but even using that comparison! 9 games is enough for Elliott to be thrown on the scrap heap? That's not even a full season! I don't think there is a magic number but it's more than 9 ******* games on a team with plenty of other issues. People are too quick to throw people away here. You better be damn sure your guy is a stud if you're going to spend a full season developing him, otherwise you're just pissing away a season for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Well, we are currently pissing away this season - like we pissed away the last one... so suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 but even using that comparison! 9 games is enough for Elliott to be thrown on the scrap heap? I feel like we've been through this before. I didn't want Elliott tossed away without allowing him to compete in camp. However, based on what I saw of him I didn't think he had much more upside. Ignore the 9 game issue. I was only trying to say I think Goltz will be ahead of where Elliott was at the 9 game mark, but I apparently didn't word it very well. Our team averaged approx. 18 points/game with Elliott. He had two games that were way better than what Goltz has shown, two that were way worse, & the rest have been more or less the same. Given the obvious advantage Goltz has in his overall physical attributes, I consider him to be a better prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 but even using that comparison! 9 games is enough for Elliott to be thrown on the scrap heap? I feel like we've been through this before. I didn't want Elliott tossed away without allowing him to compete in camp. However, based on what I saw of him I didn't think he had much more upside. Ignore the 9 game issue. I was only trying to say I think Goltz will be ahead of where Elliott was at the 9 game mark, but I apparently didn't word it very well. Our team averaged approx. 18 points/game with Elliott. He had two games that were way better than what Goltz has shown, two that were way worse, & the rest have been more or less the same. Given the obvious advantage Goltz has in his overall physical attributes, I consider him to be a better prospect. I guess my main point is that they'd already invested time into Elliott, he was more ready to start games than Goltz was... Now we've got a qb who needs more time still (and I agree that Goltz looks like he's got some real potential) it's just that we would have been better off starting Elliott this year than Hall or than Goltz and it quite frankly doesn't matter if Goltz winds up better than Elliott long term because short term the team is worse off for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 Well, we are currently pissing away this season - like we pissed away the last one... so suggestions? If Goltz turns out good then we didn't piss it away. All I know is Elliott stopped showing improvement last season and it looks like every GM in the CFL agrees. No point going back to that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted September 8, 2013 Report Share Posted September 8, 2013 The difference between Wpg and other teams is that Marsh, Collaros and Mitchell will likely be given a chance to develop even with average numbers and interceptions... Both of these guys played today's game much like Elliott played last year. I wonder if Popp will talk to the media about how he can't wait for Calvillo to get healthy because he gives them the best chance to win... 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