The offence sputtered once again when it was needed.   10 first downs in 3 quarters of football is flat out atrocious.     We forced two turnovers inside the 25 yd line and came away with 3 points!   Turn those into 2 TD's and we win this game.  Willy is still is very inaccurate with his throws and overthrowing or under throwing his receivers.  The boos he received tonight were well deserved.

The defense got shredded again tonight, but still gave us a chance to win.    This loss is on the O.

  I'm curious what the board here thinks on how much more time to give Willy?   Is the fact that we have no running game (no surprise there) contributing to his awful performance?  Should he be benched in favour of Nichols?  Thoughts?

6 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Strange thing is O'Shea had all off-season to sit and think about this and learn from his mistakes.  Yet he comes back to work in the spring tied to the same erroneous convictions that are likely to cost him the biggest job of his life.  He preaches coaching and learning from mistakes every week but doesn't seem to follow that mantra himself. 

Bringing him back was a mistake. He should have been fired at the end of last year.

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by iso_55

51 minutes ago, Adrenaline_x said:

Arland.     Auto correct

And his favourite dessert: Almond Bruce

16 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Bringing him back was a mistake. He should have been fired at the end of last year.

Bringing O'Shea back looks to be one of the big mistakes that will cost Walters his job in the not too distant future- along with the bloated contract to Willy.

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by tracker

6 hours ago, Doc said:

justin goltz was a better qb than drew willy. we won't be a good team till someone gets some cohonas and plays a real qb.

Due to poor play and lack of production Buck Pierce, current QB coach, lost his starting QB job to Justin Goltz in 2012. Paul Lapolice was head coach at that time. Now those two fantastic winners, Pierce and Lapolice, are guiding Drew 'Two-N-Out' Willy. This is the context. What do people expect?

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by Doublezero

4 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Burris would trip over his pouty bottom lip if he tried to deal with the **** Willy goes through. Burris is a great team mate when things go well but when things don't go well he's the biggest suck out there. 

That's a load of crap.  When has Burris not been a consummate competitor or teammate?  Your blind faith in Willy and unfounded hate for Burris is getting old.  

It's attitudes like yours that's going to continue this history of losing.  IIRC you were dead set against the WBB's going after Reilly. 

 

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by B-F-F-C

22 minutes ago, B-F-F-C said:

That's a load of crap.  When has Burris not been a consummate competitor or teammate?  Your blind faith in Willy and unfounded hate for Burris is getting old.  

It's attitudes like yours that's going to continue this history of losing.  IIRC you were dead set against the WBB's going after Reilly. 

 

When the Stamps lost in the 2011 playoffs it was strongly suggested in an interview that Drew Tate could be the starter in 2012. He said to reporters that he would never agree to play behind Tate. His comments raised a lot of eyebrows as they were totally selfish. Stamps traded him a couple of months later to Hamilton.

Hank is a great guy when he's starting but gets downright pouty when he's not. I saw him play here in Calgary for 6 seasons. Lots of stories in the media or social media good & bad.

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by iso_55

10 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

When the Stamps lost in the 2011 playoffs it was strongly suggested in an interview that Drew Tate could be the starter in 2012. He said to reporters that he would never agree to play behind Tate. His comments raised a lot of eyebrows as they were totally selfish. Stamps traded him a couple of months later to Hamilton.

Hank is a great guy when he's starting but gets downright pouty when he's not. I saw him play here in Calgary for 6 seasons. Lots of stories in the media or social media good & bad.

You know what.  I don't care.  He's a winner and a fierce competitor and that's something we're in need of.  Two seasons from Burris is better than two more years from Willy.  Plus that will give Walters or whoever is in the job next a couple of years to recruit the next starter. 

Burris is still hurt but if we are 1-6 or whatever at the bye then we should definitely acquire Burris!  Definitely!

3 minutes ago, B-F-F-C said:

You know what.  I don't care.  He's a winner and a fierce competitor and that's something we're in need of.  Two seasons from Burris is better than two more years from Willy.  Plus that will give Walters or whoever is in the job next a couple of years to recruit the next starter. 

Short term is all he'll give you as he's 41. He may only give us a year. Is it worth tying up huge money for a single season? As far as long term recruitment goes look at the Bomber record of qb recruitment. It's brutal & a total failure.

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

Burris is still hurt but if we are 1-6 or whatever at the bye then we should definitely acquire Burris!  Definitely!

Burris might be the answer for one, perhaps two years, but then what? The last quarterback the Bombers found who was decent was Danny Mac, and that was a long time ago. In the meantime, other teams found good ones.

More criticism of Willy. This time 3D Nation's Drew Edwards & Justin Dunk.

http://3downnation.com/2016/07/15/3min-3down-many-challenges-worries-willy/

 

7 minutes ago, tracker said:

Burris might be the answer for one, perhaps two years, but then what? The last quarterback the Bombers found who was decent was Danny Mac, and that was a long time ago. In the meantime, other teams found good ones.

One or two years of winning sounds great, I'll take it.  Sign some young prospect to develop on the bench for one or two years and you're set.  It's so easy.

Just now, Atomic said:

One or two years of winning sounds great, I'll take it.  Sign some young prospect to develop on the bench for one or two years and you're set.  It's so easy.

Sorry, don't prescribe to band aid effects & bringing in Burris would be just that. I wouldn't be satisfied with just one year of winning. No chance. Finding prospects is not  easy. If it was we'd have found maybe 10 or 11 Matt Dunigan's since 1990.

Just now, iso_55 said:

Sorry, don't prescribe to band aid effects & bringing in Burris would be just that. I wouldn't be satisfied with just one year of winning. No chance. Finding prospects is not  easy. If it was we'd have found maybe 10 or 11 Matt Dunigan's since 1990.

So your answer is who?  Not a prospect, not Willy, not Burris?  Tate?  No... not Tate.  Who then?

3 minutes ago, Atomic said:

So your answer is who?  Not a prospect, not Willy, not Burris?  Tate?  No... not Tate.  Who then?

Not a 41 year old Burris. What do you think Marcel Desjardins will want for us to get him? It'll be  1 or 2 impact starters at least, some neg list players & for sure our first round draft pick. Perhaps multiple years. No thanks. Too much to give up for a guy that age. That would be insane.

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by iso_55

Walters made his bed with Willy. Now he'll have to live with it.

Depending how the rest of the year goes, I wonder if DD shakes free at the end of the season. Taking a pay cut n signing one year might be the writing on the wall DD will get paid, I just dont think Jones is the type to pay it, especially if franklin walk away from edmonton in FA

11 hours ago, Atomic said:

I still have faith in Willy.  I have less faith in Paul LaPolice to be honest.   

Yeah talk about deja vu offensive schemes. The year thus far has reminded me of our 2011 'Swaggerville' team just without the awesome D. At least we have better uniforms, we've been losing but we've looked fantastic doing it.

5 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Yeah talk about deja vu offensive schemes. The year thus far has reminded me of our 2011 'Swaggerville' team just without the awesome D. At least we have better uniforms, we've been losing but we've looked fantastic doing it.

Our D has had three really good weeks. The only time they played badly was against Calgary in week two.

49 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Yeah talk about deja vu offensive schemes. The year thus far has reminded me of our 2011 'Swaggerville' team just without the awesome D. At least we have better uniforms, we've been losing but we've looked fantastic doing it.

I have more faith in what LaPo's doing than an overpaid qb underperforming.

Harris compiled basically 1/3 of the offensive yardage against Edm. Look for teams to SPY him when designing their defensive packages in the future. It seems apparent shutdown Harris and you shutdown the offence.

The expectations of Willy by management are one of the strangest things I've ever seen.  He was a backup in Saskatchewan with very limited action, and in his first season as a starter with the Bombers he lost more games than he won.  But somehow management felt he was a future star and rewarded him with a $400,000/yr. contract.  I didn't understand the need to give him that big a deal and obviously still don't.  I hate going to Nichols if Willy continues to struggle, but I guess there's no choice.

My main question is the same as it unfortunately always seems to be with respect to the QB position.  Why do we always end up with back-up QB's from other teams?   It's been over a quarter of a century since we scouted, signed and developed our own QB.  That's just pathetic scouting.  Sorry, but it is.

Edited July 16, 20169 yr by gcdrought

6 minutes ago, gcdrought said:

The expectations of Willy by management are one of the strangest things I've ever seen.  He was a backup in Saskatchewan with very limited action, and in his first season as a starter with the Bombers he lost more games than he won.  But somehow management felt he was a future star and rewarded him with a $400,000/yr. contract.  I didn't understand the need to give him that big a deal and obviously still don't.  I hate going to Nichols if Willy continues to struggle, but I guess there's no choice.

My main question is the same as it unfortunately always seems to be with respect to the QB position.  Why do we always end up with back-up QB's from other teams?   It's been over a quarter of a century since we scouted, signed and developed our own QB.  That's just pathetic scouting.  Sorry, but it is.

Total desperation combined with past exasperation make for strange bedfellows.

10 hours ago, iso_55 said:

Not a 41 year old Burris. What do you think Marcel Desjardins will want for us to get him? It'll be  1 or 2 impact starters at least, some neg list players & for sure our first round draft pick. Perhaps multiple years. No thanks. Too much to give up for a guy that age. That would be insane.

Desjardins should be happy to dump Hank's huge contract, especially If he turns into a club-house *****.  He may play hardball initially and try and steal Natls. but that contract is just too much of a burden to carry forth especially when he has to retain Harris and his receiving core.  Depending on the quality of the other backups, if Desjardins can't move Burris this season he may just cut him before next. 

2 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Desjardins should be happy to dump Hank's huge contract, especially If he turns into a club-house *****.  He may play hardball initially and try and steal Natls. but that contract is just too much of a burden to carry forth especially when he has to retain Harris and his receiving core.  Depending on the quality of the other backups, if Desjardins can't move Burris this season he may just cut him before next. 

Burris being cut after this season is the most obvious no brainer. The guy is making 475K and Harris contract balloons to 400K next year.