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.

16 hours ago, do or die said:

When we got Harris going, it seemed to help kick start the passing game.......however, we hardly had the ball (Montreal O) for most of the game....

I think what we learned from week one is give the rock to Harris early and often.  Simplify, give the ball to our studs and let them do their thing. Dressler going down early disrupted what was a beginning of a nice game plan. If Dressler comes back healthy, stays healthy, we keep with the same gameplan we had for Montreal centering around Harris, Dressler and Smith. I see Willy doing a lot more quick hits this week to get his confidence going.   

16 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

Winnipeg lost by one score only because of two turnovers by Randle and one penalty. Winnipeg was never in the game.

There is no "only because". Montreal outperformed us to a translation of 8 more points than us on the scoreboard.  The rest is football.  Our defense forced some turnovers, and kept us in the game.  Shocking. 

Did Calgary lose to BC "only because" they couldn't get in from the 1 yard line after 4 tries?

 

 

26 minutes ago, TrueBlue said:

There is no "only because". Montreal outperformed us to a translation of 8 more points than us on the scoreboard.  The rest is football.  Our defense forced some turnovers, and kept us in the game.  Shocking. 

Did Calgary lose to BC "only because" they couldn't get in from the 1 yard line after 4 tries?

 

 

Totally agree, I always have to remind myself of this. "the score could have been way worse!" but it wasn't, it wasn't because the Bombers made the plays they had too to keep it close. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if MTL totally screwed up a play or not. What matters is the result of the play. 

1 hour ago, TrueBlue said:

There is no "only because". Montreal outperformed us to a translation of 8 more points than us on the scoreboard.  The rest is football.  Our defense forced some turnovers, and kept us in the game.  Shocking. 

Did Calgary lose to BC "only because" they couldn't get in from the 1 yard line after 4 tries?

 

 

Any serious football fan knows that garbage time points are just that-- garbage.

We didn't score a single garbage point.

Two score differentials are not garbage time in the CFL. Ever. Maybe with 30 seconds left.

Was Montreal playing a prevent on the Darvin TD? Nope.

The score was 24-4 when we scored a 4th quarter TD. To me that's garbage time. I guess if you want to find positives, go ahead. Be my guest.

7 minutes ago, White Out said:

The score was 24-4 when we scored a 4th quarter TD. To me that's garbage time. I guess if you want to find positives, go ahead. Be my guest.

seen plenty of 20 point come backs in the CFL, why is this one arbitrarily garbage time? Because it fits your narrative?

10 minutes ago, White Out said:

The score was 24-4 when we scored a 4th quarter TD. To me that's garbage time. I guess if you want to find positives, go ahead. Be my guest.

So, you're saying being down 8 with 2:38 left, the Bombers were not in the game???

16 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

seen plenty of 20 point come backs in the CFL, why is this one arbitrarily garbage time? Because it fits your narrative?

It also wasn't 24-4, it was 22-6, which is a huge difference as it goes from a three score game to a two.

19 minutes ago, JCon said:

So, you're saying being down 8 with 2:38 left, the Bombers were not in the game???

Sadly for some people, if the Bombers score it's a fluke, if the opposition scores it's because we suck.  If we lose we're garbage, if we win, we were just lucky.  Yep, "fans"

51 minutes ago, Mike said:

It also wasn't 24-4, it was 22-6, which is a huge difference as it goes from a three score game to a two.

well there you go, I guess the answer is simple, people making **** up just for the sake of being negative. What a sad way to live having to invent reasons to be miserable. 

1 hour ago, WBBFanWest said:

Sadly for some people, if the Bombers score it's a fluke, if the opposition scores it's because we suck.  If we lose we're garbage, if we win, we were just lucky.  Yep, "fans"

This....in a nutshell.....what keeps me from posting more.

1 hour ago, White Out said:

The score was 24-4 when we scored a 4th quarter TD. To me that's garbage time. I guess if you want to find positives, go ahead. Be my guest.

Well **** son... the final score was 22-14.

I reckon the Allouettes scored two Verts (Opposite of a rouge, where they take a point away) in the 4th, before cruisin to victory in "Garbage Time". 

Doesn't fit your narrative, so you go and make **** up.

Worst. Troll. Ever. 

 

*redacted*. 

If your down multiple scores in the 4th the opposing team gets lazy and usually, not always, gets softer.

Im not trying to make anything up or for a narrative. We made it close late in the game when Montreal would have geared down and when it got close, Willy et all was unable to tie it. 

 

Amazed at the venomous replies, frankly 

I edited my post to frankly try and bring some civility back. Again, repeat, I'm not looking to discredit Willy and the O for the sake of being negative and a contrarian. I think any reasonable football fan will agree that if the game is multiple scores difference, and our O has scored but 1 single field goal up to part way thru the 4th, that if the game gets close it`s hard to hitch your wagon to that as a success. Will it carry over? Maybe. I doubt it. Betting odds on it wouldn't be that high.

Talk about wanting to post less because of me writing that is, in itself, hysterical nonsense worthy of "leave brittany alone". Talk about paper thin skin. 

Edited June 29, 20169 yr by White Out

4 minutes ago, White Out said:

I guess I'm the target de jour for the cheerleaders. 

If your down multiple scores in the 4th the opposing team gets lazy and usually, not always, gets softer.

Im not trying to make anything up or for a narrative. We made it close late in the game when Montreal would have geared down and when it got close, Willy et all was unable to tie it. 

 

Amazed at the venomous replies, frankly 

You make it sound like it was 36-6 in the fourth.  It was 22-6, big difference.  That's totally doable in one quarter.

Garbage time points is when you have no chance of beating the other team late in the 4th.  Get your definitions straight.

Sure if you want to disagree with my use of the term garbage time, I'll give you that. It was 22-4 when the 4th quarter started, and there was very little reason to believe that our offence would suddenly click and turn it on. Montreal eased up on the gas and Winnipeg made it close, and when the going got tough we had multiple shots at getting the game to overtime or winning but couldn't get it done.

Did Willy and company finally get their act together, or, did Montreal let up after watching a total clown show for 3 quarters? The truth is likely a little of both but the lions share is , in my opinion, the clown show option.

If you want to really talk about how silly things are here on this forum, the hysterics over benign and uncontroversial statements like mine are  a good place to start.

Maybe using the word garbage time is incorrect.

How about the Bombers trotted out the same old extremely slow start as they have for the last 5 seasons.    You can't expect to compete if you continually have zero offense in the first 3 quarters of every game.  

 

23 minutes ago, White Out said:

Sure if you want to disagree with my use of the term garbage time, I'll give you that. It was 22-4 when the 4th quarter started, and there was very little reason to believe that our offence would suddenly click and turn it on. Montreal eased up on the gas and Winnipeg made it close, and when the going got tough we had multiple shots at getting the game to overtime or winning but couldn't get it done.

Did Willy and company finally get their act together, or, did Montreal let up after watching a total clown show for 3 quarters? The truth is likely a little of both but the lions share is , in my opinion, the clown show option.

If you want to really talk about how silly things are here on this forum, the hysterics over benign and uncontroversial statements like mine are  a good place to start.

I think it's the tone of your posts. For example, look at the above:

1) Condescending tone

2) Douchey tone

3) Narcissistic tone

 

And this is in a post where you are acknowledging a mistake... 

I think you should re-read your post before you hit send and check your tone. That would be "a good place to start".

 

36 minutes ago, White Out said:

Sure if you want to disagree with my use of the term garbage time, I'll give you that. It was 22-4 when the 4th quarter started, and there was very little reason to believe that our offence would suddenly click and turn it on. Montreal eased up on the gas and Winnipeg made it close, and when the going got tough we had multiple shots at getting the game to overtime or winning but couldn't get it done.

Did Willy and company finally get their act together, or, did Montreal let up after watching a total clown show for 3 quarters? The truth is likely a little of both but the lions share is , in my opinion, the clown show option.

If you want to really talk about how silly things are here on this forum, the hysterics over benign and uncontroversial statements like mine are  a good place to start.

I think that you really need to make use of this website : http://www.thesaurus.com/  because clearly, you don't understand what the words benign and uncontroversial mean.

This thread has really gone south in a hell of a hurray.  

Football games are 60 minutes long.....  

The deal... is to not simply dig ourselves right into a deep hole, for the first 30, 40.... or in this case closer to 50 minutes.

The tiresome reality.... is that the Bombers continue to do this game, after game, after game.......a critical factor that leads to loss, after loss, after loss.

As soon as they kick that habit.....you will certainly see an uptick in approval and more confidence from the fans, towards this team.

...and just perhaps... a decrease in gin consumption.   But I am not making promises....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 20169 yr by do or die

11 minutes ago, do or die said:

Football games are 60 minutes long.....  

The deal... is to not simply dig ourselves right into a deep hole, for the first 30, 40.... or in this case closer to 50 minutes.

The tiresome reality.... is that the Bombers continue to do this game, after game, after game.......a critical factor that leads to loss, after loss, after loss.

As soon as they kick that habit.....you will certainly see an uptick in approval and more confidence from the fans, towards this team.

...and just perhaps... a decrease in gin consumption.   But I am not making promises....

 

Maybe the Gin people are paying the Bombers to lose?

BEWARE : the overuse of correction fluid in this thread can be hazardous to your reading pleasure...

4 hours ago, White Out said:

Any serious football fan knows that garbage time points are just that-- garbage.

Any serious CFL fan knows that a 2 score lead can evaporate in a hurry, especially in the 4th quarter during an away game. It's happened countless times in the CFL.

NFL - totally agree, it would be garbage time.

CFL - 2 score lead - game isn't over until the clock is under 30 seconds regardless of how the Off has been playing.

Just curious, does anyone know when the Bombers last overcame a 20 point deficit and how many times they have done it since, say 1990? Failing that, does anyone know where I might look up such a statistic?