Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Replies 250
  • Views 30k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • I wish the gamma radiation had killed you. 

  • cheering for the Riders is never an option. 

  • Eternal optimist
    Eternal optimist

    Can we just have a gentleman's agreement with Calgary next week, and force the game to a tie? It would lock up a playoff spot for us, and lock up 1st in the West for them.

comment_357708
9 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

Pretty much never unless you have no "proven" starter. 

My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up.

It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven.

It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo. 

comment_357755
3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up.

It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven.

It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo. 

I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever.

comment_357757
15 minutes ago, Dragon37 said:

I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever.

Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind.

Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if  it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios.

comment_357766
35 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind.

Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if  it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios.

They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. 

comment_357773
18 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Whatever happened to the days that you could use both QB's strategically without fear of melting a snowflake.

I don;t think Nichols' ego is the problem here... it would be O'Shea's unwillingness to use his second QB more...

also, there was never really a time when this was a common practice... a few teams have tinkered with it over the years, but that's about it..

comment_357787
1 hour ago, JCon said:

They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. 

I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view.

comment_357795
20 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view.

I thought you were suggesting that the Bombers were not doing this. 

comment_358256

....for the last spot in the playoffs.  It's a 6 week playoff series to see who gets the Crossover nod.

I've seen one prediction where they think the Lions will end up 9-9 and make it into the playoffs.  What have you seen?

LIONS....TIGERS....AND BLUE BOMBERS.....OH MY!
 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment