I think it's time to talk Drew Willy. 

In 2014 I thought he showed promise. Last year I started noticing the happy feet in the pocket. One thing I really liked about Willy in 2014 was how cool and calm he was, and his pocket awareness. In 2015 you started to see him throwing off his back foot, and moving around when the pressure wasn't there. Personally I think he's taken some big hits and mentally i'm not sure if he can recover. Numbers or not he looked dreadful last night. Can he recover? Is it time to start looking at Nichols or another QB option? To win in the CFL you need solid play from your quarterback. This is Willy's third year here and there's really no excuse for him to be regressing instead of progressing.

Glenn gets nervous & gets the yips but Willy is absolutely shell shocked.

 

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by iso_55

I don't know if he's shell shocked or still just shaking off the rust after not playing for a long long time. I think Willy still has potential to be a very good QB and I'm not gonna write him off yet but if the O still sucks let's say 3 weeks from now... I might change my mind a little bit. I look at BLM and Ray even in their games and they didn't look so good either. I expect Durant to look like crap also. 

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by Goalie

The next couple of weeks will be interesting for sure.

Still not sold on this O line. Montreal had a pretty young O line who gave ours a clinic on blitz protection.

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Can it get any worse? 

 

Wow. We lost by one score in his first game back off a season ending injury. I think some of us are getting ahead of ourselves here.

The one score thing is so misleading.    Same issues we had the last 2 seasons....  we pile on the yards and points way after the game is out of hand so the final output makes it look like it was competitive. 

That last game *could* of easily been a blow out of 20 + more points then what we had.    

7 hours ago, LeBird said:

I am not convinced Willy is the problem. He came here and was the player of the week twice at the beginning of the year. He started getting hit and his production went down. We were very unhappy when Glen was here and we ran him out of town only to wish we could have him back. 

Glen gets very nervous when he's hurried or sacked so he too would be like Willy after a while.  Besides, he would be a very short term solution.

I really do not think our Oline is as good right now as Coach Wylie would like us to believe. These players might be good but  as a unit they are not so much. On one sack, Neufeld seemed to have been planted and when he did move it was only to push Jace who was trying to make block. The sack came off his side.

Having said that I am hoping things will be much better this week. 

Well said.

The above is also my position on the subject.

Also I agree with what  many people on here say when they are asking for a diferent QB. A more athletic QB would definitely help the offence. If the team had a QB built like a linebacker, that enjoyed contact, could run, and was also a decent passer, it would take a great amount of pressure off the OLine. With the addition of some QB running plays you would have a very effective offence that would be difficult to defend.

There are only two major problems with this. First, that combination of characteristics in a QB only comes along once every 25 years or so, and other teams will compete to retain a player with that talent combination. Second, players like that have short careers because that style is likely to cause injuries.

 

5 hours ago, Blueballz said:

Still not sold on this O line. Montreal had a pretty young O line who gave ours a clinic on blitz protection.

See that's what bugs me about our O-line problems... Mtl started an all Canadian O-line, with (essentially) a rookie at LT and they dominated our D-line... gave up zero sacks... Last year Calgary lost two starters in a game and I believe at one point had 2 D-linemen playing on the O-line in an emergency situation and they still managed to hold their own...

You can't tell me that Montreal's o-line last week and Calgary's last year (during injuries) was better personnel-wise then ours currently is... player-to-player, we stack up to them... but for whatever reason we give up sacks like their candy on halloween and can't get any push on short yardage... is it the curse of Westwood or something (oh sorry, that theory is for the crazy thoughts thread)... I don't know what it is... I was hoping (and still am) that this coaching staff knows what it is...

The MOntreal O line hardly "dominated".  We got to Glenn several times.  No we didn't get a sack, but then again, Glenn is known for getting rid of the ball as fast as just about anyone in the league.   That being said, he was picking himself up off the turf on more than a couple of occasions and we got at least one pick as a direct result of him being rushed.   If he's even 1 second slower at getting rid of the ball, we end up with at least a couple, if not more, sacks.  Turn it around and put Willy behind their o-line and see if they still "dominate".  

This is was Coach Wylie was talking about.  Sacks are not automatically the fault of the O-line nor is an absence of sacks an absolute indication that an o-line "dominated"

Bottom line, there's so many factors that go into a sack that average fans don't have any clue about. MOS said something yesterday about how whenever there's a sack, it means at least 2 or 3 things went wrong in order for that to happen...

Well, we should all be experts by now......after watching the last 175 sacks.....

1 hour ago, WBBFanWest said:

The MOntreal O line hardly "dominated".  We got to Glenn several times.  No we didn't get a sack, but then again, Glenn is known for getting rid of the ball as fast as just about anyone in the league.   That being said, he was picking himself up off the turf on more than a couple of occasions and we got at least one pick as a direct result of him being rushed.   If he's even 1 second slower at getting rid of the ball, we end up with at least a couple, if not more, sacks.  Turn it around and put Willy behind their o-line and see if they still "dominate".  

This is was Coach Wylie was talking about.  Sacks are not automatically the fault of the O-line nor is an absence of sacks an absolute indication that an o-line "dominated"

Fair enough.... I know that sacks aren't the only measure of o-line play... nor is a sack always the o-line's fault... I was just making the point that other teams seem to be doing a much better job scraping together an o-line/protection plan than we ever seem to come up with... 

Sacks allowed after week 1:

Toronto - 6

Winnipeg - 5

Calgary - 3

BC - 3

Hamilton - 2

Ottawa - 2

Edmonton - 2

Montreal - 0

Saskatchewan - 0 sacks, many many sucks.

 

 

yeah I think we had a sack, but it was called back due to a phantom face mask call.

 

Also MTL didn't really have to deal with a lot of Blitzes...for some reason that wasn't in our game plan. And when we did blitz it was obvious where it was going to come from well before the snap.

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by Bigblue204

23 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Sacks allowed after week 1:

Toronto - 6

Winnipeg - 5

Calgary - 3

BC - 3

Hamilton - 2

Ottawa - 2

Edmonton - 2

Montreal - 0

Saskatchewan - 0 sacks, many many sucks.

 

 

WE'RE NOT LAST!!! WE'RE NOT LAST!!! WE'RE NOT LAST!!!

#SmallVictories

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

yeah I think we had a sack, but it was called back due to a phantom face mask call.

We certainly hurried Glenn which caused the Randle turnover (and almost the Fogg turnover on the play before).

4 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

yeah I think we had a sack, but it was called back due to a phantom face mask call.

 

Also MTL didn't really have to deal with a lot of Blitzes...for some reason that wasn't in our game plan. And when we did blitz it was obvious where it was going to come from well before the snap.

In an interview a couple of weeks ago, Hall said that because of the improved personnel on defence, the Bombers would be a lot more creative in coverage and line play this season. Still waiting.

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

yeah I think we had a sack, but it was called back due to a phantom face mask call.

 

Also MTL didn't really have to deal with a lot of Blitzes...for some reason that wasn't in our game plan. And when we did blitz it was obvious where it was going to come from well before the snap.

Bombers blitzed a fair amount, I can recall a couple each from Hurl, Bass, Wild and Leggett.  Bass came very close and got great licks on Glenn at least twice.

The difference was the Glenn was able to handle the first rusher in... either with a quick pass or by stepping up in the pocket.  He had a really good game, played tough.

 

14 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Bombers blitzed a fair amount, I can recall a couple each from Hurl, Bass, Wild and Leggett.  Bass came very close and got great licks on Glenn at least twice.

Bass even caused the randle interception on the first of his two great hits.

2 minutes ago, Floyd said:

The difference was the Glenn was able to handle the first rusher in... either with a quick pass or by stepping up in the pocket.  He had a really good game, played tough.

 

Whether sacked or not, he had to pick himself off the turf 5-6 times.  Westerman shoved him so hard one time he almost took flight, it was absolutely comical,

Give AC some credit he worked around his weakness. Got the ball out of Glenn's hands quick.

30 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Bombers blitzed a fair amount, I can recall a couple each from Hurl, Bass, Wild and Leggett.  Bass came very close and got great licks on Glenn at least twice.

More often than not they were either too late, or entirely ineffective. Bass' hit on Glenn being one of the few examples of when they worked.

Who looked good and when looked bad is inconsequential at this point. Football is clearly a team game. Good teams find a way to win poor teams.....not.  The patience mantra has been beaten to death....the W's are the only measuring stick that will both appise and be an indicator that this team has truly turned the corner.

4 hours ago, Noeller said:

Bottom line, there's so many factors that go into a sack that average fans don't have any clue about. MOS said something yesterday about how whenever there's a sack, it means at least 2 or 3 things went wrong in order for that to happen...

I will admit I don't have much of a clue what all that goes on in a sack  but doing the maths if it takes 2 or 3 things to go wrong that would mean 10 to 15 things went wrong on sacks alone.  When you add the times when enough went wrong that we couldn't get a yard or Harris ran up the backside of the linemen and it sure does not leave many plays that went all  good.  

All I'm trying to say is at some point, which might not be too far off, the fans will start looking for blood and that is when the GM might get happy feet.

 

Edited June 28, 20169 yr by LeBird

6 minutes ago, LeBird said:

I will admit I don't have much of a clue what all that goes on in a sack  but doing the maths if it takes 2 or 3 things to go wrong that would mean 10 to 15 things went wrong on sacks alone.  When you add the times when enough went wrong that we couldn't get a yard or Harris ran up the backside of the linemen and it sure does not leave many plays that went all  good.  

All I'm trying to say is at some point, which might not be too far off, the fans will start looking for blood and that is when the GM might get happy feet.

 

Something goes wrong on every single play in football, it doesn't take much for multiple things to go wrong in a single instance.