October 25, 20168 yr comment_231545 15 hours ago, SPuDS said: All things being equal, do you think a guy like Dickenson could help us convert in the red zone? O'Shea can't. -phones weird, can't quote. Anyway do you think our defense would be as impressive as it is or our special teams so vastly improved and now now a force under Dickenson? I don't. You know what they say about defense winning championships. Also, win 2 outta 3 facets of the game and you normally win.. Fair point about the D. We got some kinda special mojo going on with the D and all those INTs. You're also right about defenses winning championships. Yep, good points. Here's my concern though and we've seen it many times this season already ... when the offense is 2-and-outing it, the D wilts and teams with strong offences tend to steamroll us. If we can at least improve TOP it gives the D some recovery time and of course, nothing lifts a D like the O scoring a few TDs. It gives them that moxy to take a chance and jump a route when the opportunity is there instead of hesitating because the score is close or we are behind.
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232244 I think most of us believe that Walters has done a good job of bringing talented ball players here, especially this season. So after yesterday's stinker do we look at the players or the coaches or both? If we go into Ottawa and perform similarly and then do a one-and-done in the crossover game, does Miller still extend Mike O'Shea or does Walters start searching earnestly for a better head coach? Does anyone think our fortunes would improve dramatically with someone like Mark Trestman here?
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232249 It was one game....the players were coming off the bye week and clearly didn't have their heads in it from the start. If they come out similarly next week and do the same thing, THEN maybe we've got a problem, but I just don't see it happening. They're going to be ANGRY next week...
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232251 9 minutes ago, Noeller said: It was one game....the players were coming off the bye week and clearly didn't have their heads in it from the start. If they come out similarly next week and do the same thing, THEN maybe we've got a problem, but I just don't see it happening. They're going to be ANGRY next week... I hear ya but we figured the same thing after a loss to Calgary earlier this season. We were mad and were going to whip the shmoes the following week, except of course, that didn't happen and we got our arses handed to us. This team is a real enigma. We can look so good like we did in beating BC back-to-back. Then we can look like we did yesterday. A real bipolar, Jekyll-Hyde, thing. Just can't put my finger on why. It's enough to drive a fan crazy. Edited October 30, 20168 yr by J5V Spelling
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232252 I don't think anyone would confuse this team for the Stampeders current roster. It's a work in progress, no question. But it's a start....and something to build off of. When they are playing like they can, this team can run with anyone in the league. The difference between a team like ours and a team like the Stamps? They are consistently good...and even when they're at their worst, they're still pretty good. When we're at our worst, we can lose to anyone. When we're at our best, we can beat anyone.
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232261 1 hour ago, Noeller said: I don't think anyone would confuse this team for the Stampeders current roster. It's a work in progress, no question. But it's a start....and something to build off of. When they are playing like they can, this team can run with anyone in the league. The difference between a team like ours and a team like the Stamps? They are consistently good...and even when they're at their worst, they're still pretty good. When we're at our worst, we can lose to anyone. When we're at our best, we can beat anyone. Can't deny that the Stamps are a great team, but the good teams compete pretty much every game, even when they lose- like Hamilton vs Edmonton. The O-line is (mostly) fixed, Nichols is a decent QB, our running game and receivers are at least average but we're still getting blown out. LaPolice deserves to be questioned, as do Hall and O'Shea. Edited October 30, 20168 yr by tracker
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232269 2 hours ago, tracker said: Can't deny that the Stamps are a great team, but the good teams compete pretty much every game, even when they lose- like Hamilton vs Edmonton. The O-line is (mostly) fixed, Nichols is a decent QB, our running game and receivers are at least average but we're still getting blown out. LaPolice deserves to be questioned, as do Hall and O'Shea. Turn overs. Nichols took points away with bad picks and some failed gambles took some away too. That's the game.
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232272 If Nichols doesn't throw that initial pick amd we end up with a TD, the game ends entirely differently. Momentum is a funny thing. . .
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232277 55 minutes ago, Noeller said: If Nichols doesn't throw that initial pick amd we end up with a TD, the game ends entirely differently. Momentum is a funny thing. . . Hell even a field goal out of that changes things because that's been the Bombers MO in their wins too. chip away with field goals and eventually the D adjusts and tightens up the coverage and the offense keeps chipping away. You throw the ball away and come out with nothing though and it's too big a hole. Momentum is everything for this team and when they're in that deep they can't get out.
October 30, 20168 yr comment_232278 3 minutes ago, 17to85 said: Hell even a field goal out of that changes things because that's been the Bombers MO in their wins too. chip away with field goals and eventually the D adjusts and tightens up the coverage and the offense keeps chipping away. You throw the ball away and come out with nothing though and it's too big a hole. Momentum is everything for this team and when they're in that deep they can't get out. Even if the Bombers had gotten a field goal, there is no reason to believe that the RBs would not have marched down the field the next two times and scored TDs. The defence played way to loose for the entire first half and the score actually flattered the Bombers at half-time. Did they think they could turn it on for the last 30 minutes and win?
October 31, 20168 yr comment_232307 7 hours ago, tracker said: Even if the Bombers had gotten a field goal, there is no reason to believe that the RBs would not have marched down the field the next two times and scored TDs. The defence played way to loose for the entire first half and the score actually flattered the Bombers at half-time. Did they think they could turn it on for the last 30 minutes and win? Well to be honest they have done it before. The D gave them a chance to get back in the game in the 3rd Q and the O did not respond.
October 31, 20168 yr comment_232316 8 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said: Well to be honest they have done it before. The D gave them a chance to get back in the game in the 3rd Q and the O did not respond. Yes, they have, but it has been like playing Russian Roulette. This time the hammer came down on a loaded cylinder and the long-suffering fans had to pay for it by watching that mess on Saturday.
October 31, 20168 yr comment_232348 2 hours ago, tracker said: Yes, they have, but it has been like playing Russian Roulette. This time the hammer came down on a loaded cylinder and the long-suffering fans had to pay for it by watching that mess on Saturday. True.
October 31, 20168 yr comment_232366 Lapolice is too good at killing momentum by calling some stupid trick play that takes 5 seconds to develop and completely relies on a whole side of the field to part like the Red Sea...or start using the receivers as running backs on stretch plays and hope for the best. Hope we dress Flanders from here on out and keep things simple, let the players win.
November 1, 20168 yr comment_232463 22 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said: Lapolice is too good at killing momentum by calling some stupid trick play that takes 5 seconds to develop and completely relies on a whole side of the field to part like the Red Sea...or start using the receivers as running backs on stretch plays and hope for the best. Hope we dress Flanders from here on out and keep things simple, let the players win. I really cannot figure out why we are not handing the ball off 25-30 times a game... Harris was averaging OVER 8 YARDS A CARRY last week... I don't pretend to be an offensive wizard but this just seems like common sense... having Flanders in there and it's 15-20 carries for Harris and 8-12 for Flanders... just seems to make too much sense...
November 1, 20168 yr comment_232476 25 minutes ago, bearpants said: I really cannot figure out why we are not handing the ball off 25-30 times a game... Harris was averaging OVER 8 YARDS A CARRY last week... I don't pretend to be an offensive wizard but this just seems like common sense... having Flanders in there and it's 15-20 carries for Harris and 8-12 for Flanders... just seems to make too much sense... Because Lapolice likes to outsmart himself.
November 1, 20168 yr comment_232480 1 minute ago, 17to85 said: Because Lapolice likes to outsmart himself. It's true. That slow developing gadget sweep was a very elaborate way to fail at moving the ball.
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment