25 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I've seen the narrative "We have no chance with McGuire / We'll never win a game with McGuire" in this thread, and I just wanna say I don't buy that. McGuire with a full complement of 1s and a proper game plan for it can get us a win....I really believe that.

As Jim Barker said other than Bryant & Neufeld he had all the starters playing. Yeah, they are 2 of best OL on the team but their replacements did a good job. I didn't think the OL played that badly. McGuire had time to throw. He was hurried a number of times but he wasn't harassed or sacked a lot. He made really bad decision. He underthrew & overthrew open receivers., He missed targets he should have had. Now, it was his first start so I'm not writing him off.

I remember Dieter Brock's first start as a Bomber in Edmonton back in 1974 after Don Jonas was traded to Hamilton. It was a very similar game with a similar outcome & look what kind of a qb Brock became. McGuire HAS to be better. A lot better.

Edited November 14, 20213 yr by SpeedFlex27

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

As Jim Barker said other than Bryant & Neufeld he had all the starters playing. Yeah, they are 2 of best OL on the team but their replacements did a good job. I didn't think the OL played that badly. McGuire had time to throw. He was hurried a number of times but he wasn't harassed or sacked a lot. He made really bad decision. He underthrew & overthrew open receivers., He missed targets he should have had. Now, it was his first start so I'm not writing him off.

I remember Dieter Brock's first start as a Bomber in Edmonton back in 1974 after Don Jonas was traded to Toronto. It was a very similar game with a similar outcome & look what kind of a qb Brock became. McGuire HAS to be better. A lot better.

Hardrick played about a series or two and was out. We then lost the starting LT so we're down to a 3rd string. Again, Guards out on the island playing Tackle. It was a dog's breakfast. That's just ONE of the things working against him. The soaking wet ball didn't help at all. The running game never got going, so that makes them one dimensional. 

Listen, I'm not going to say that McGuire is a misunderstood all star out there today, but I think people are WILDLY over reacting.....

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Hardrick played about a series or two and was out. We then lost the starting LT so we're down to a 3rd string. Again, Guards out on the island playing Tackle. It was a dog's breakfast. That's just ONE of the things working against him. The soaking wet ball didn't help at all. The running game never got going, so that makes them one dimensional. 

Listen, I'm not going to say that McGuire is a misunderstood all star out there today, but I think people are WILDLY over reacting.....

I think it's a case of worrying we'll lose our momentum. I think we have to play our starters next week including Zach. We can only protect Collaros so much. He could get hurt first series in the WDF (heaven forbid). That's football. It's a collision sport. Injuries happen.

I think the 1s start the game next week and then we yank 'em as soon as we can. 

It sure was all about Montreal today on TSN wasn't it? They talked up Eugene Lewis & Harris as well. John Lu never talked about the Bombers at all.

**** 'em...if by some chance we meet 'em Dec 12, we'll absolutely paste those assholes. 

I wouldn't give up on McGuire,   shitty weather + one team playing to get home field while the other team playing back ups and without the foot on the pedal.... 

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

As Jim Barker said other than Bryant & Neufeld he had all the starters playing. Yeah, they are 2 of best OL on the team but their replacements did a good job. I didn't think the OL played that badly. McGuire had time to throw. He was hurried a number of times but he wasn't harassed or sacked a lot. He made really bad decision. He underthrew & overthrew open receivers., He missed targets he should have had. Now, it was his first start so I'm not writing him off.

I remember Dieter Brock's first start as a Bomber in Edmonton back in 1974 after Don Jonas was traded to Hamilton. It was a very similar game with a similar outcome & look what kind of a qb Brock became. McGuire HAS to be better. A lot better.

Hardrick only played a quarter but yeah. Richmond was looking good at t too before he got hurt. 

He had enough to do some thing with. 

10 hours ago, Brandon said:

I wouldn't give up on McGuire,   shitty weather + one team playing to get home field while the other team playing back ups and without the foot on the pedal.... 

It's not time to give up on him. He's still young and the play calling stank. But right now he looks like a no3 not a no2. Wish we had a good vet qb2 but at this point I Don't see any thing changing. 

I'm not giving up on McGuire, but that doesn't mean I think we can win a playoff game with him starting. He's not there yet and may never be ready.

There were a lot of things going on that made McGuire look worse than he might in a game that would have some meaning. The play calling and game plan would have been way different if this game was a WSF and McGuire was playing. Cooper worked his way out of town with his performance on specials that cost at least an 8 point swing and tons of field position. Just having even McKnight in there who at least secures the ball would have made a big difference in the field position battle. Then the play calling can be more controlled and McGuire is not made to force things. Even though he avoided sacks McGuire was hurried lots and often throwing off his back foot into eight man coverages many times. So I wouldn’t give up on him yet. 

 

They have to bring back the third qb on the roster. Teams can then choose to keep developing young qbs &/or have a veteran backup. 

22 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not giving up on McGuire, but that doesn't mean I think we can win a playoff game with him starting. He's not there yet and may never be ready.

Agreed. Hard to get much of a read on Saturday's result, IMO. Adverse weather, an opponent still fighting for a home playoff game, resting a bunch of starters, and a very inexperienced QB making his first CFL start made for a pretty meh game by the visitors.

It is what it is but the jury's out on McGuire at this point, IMO.

8 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Agreed. Hard to get much of a read on Saturday's result, IMO. Adverse weather, an opponent still fighting for a home playoff game, resting a bunch of starters, and a very inexperienced QB making his first CFL start made for a pretty meh game by the visitors.

It is what it is but the jury's out on McGuire at this point, IMO.

I hope McGuire gets some significant time next game with a full complement of O-line and receivers. This will give an indication whether he has been unfairly maligned or if he has the right stuff.

Folks are way overplaying the OL issues. Some hurries. No sacks. We had a full complement of receivers and RB's.

The game was just too fast for McGuire. That happens to most first time starters. He needs to play better than that to give us any chance to win.

The coach’s chose to engineer tolerance into their system of performance. Now they know the result and what to work on, a prudent strategy when there is very little at stake. They could easily afford the experiment, with next to no risk. In hindsight, I like the strategy. 

On 2021-11-13 at 9:30 PM, SpeedFlex27 said:

I think it's a case of worrying we'll lose our momentum. I think we have to play our starters next week including Zach. We can only protect Collaros so much. He could get hurt first series in the WDF (heaven forbid). That's football. It's a collision sport. Injuries happen.

I'm not sure why people think this ISN'T going to happen?

Voting for each team’s outstanding player noms happens today. And of all the numbers Zach Collaros has to make a case for being his team’s MOP, nothing is a more powerful argument than how Sean McGuire performed on Saturday. 

8 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Voting for each team’s outstanding player noms happens today. And of all the numbers Zach Collaros has to make a case for being his team’s MOP, nothing is a more powerful argument than how Sean McGuire performed on Saturday. 

What a silly statement to make.  

Because a guy getting his first ever start ,  playing in a meaningless game,  playing with back ups,  playing in terrible weather conditions , though throwing for more yards then Trevor Harris who has like 100+ starts.....   because the guy didn't have a good game this is the reason why Zach is MOP.  

 

What a strange board here  

Even if he threw for 400 with 4tds and it was 50 to 12 bombers its just one start.

All the Elliotts and Dunwiddies of the world were the 2nd coming after 1 game. McGuire is **** cuz we lost.. it's just..  11 and 2. People needed this tho cuz ppl need to ***** about something. 

 

Momentum is a made up fan thing..  it's not some week to week let's keep the momentum going otherwise we are screwed stuff. Momentum... you know soccer hockey..  all my life and no coach ever talked about momentum 

It was a learning experience, he will/can be better. Everyone wants growth to be a straight line but it doesn't always happen like that and I could find 100 examples both ways. 

I still like McGuire. 

On to Calgary. 

28 minutes ago, Goalie said:

What a strange board here  

Even if he threw for 400 with 4tds and it was 50 to 12 bombers its just one start.

All the Elliotts and Dunwiddies of the world were the 2nd coming after 1 game. McGuire is **** cuz we lost.. it's just..  11 and 2. People needed this tho cuz ppl need to ***** about something. 

 

Momentum is a made up fan thing..  it's not some week to week let's keep the momentum going otherwise we are screwed stuff. Momentum... you know soccer hockey..  all my life and no coach ever talked about momentum 

Momentum dies at the end of the game 100%

 

On 2021-11-13 at 1:43 PM, Super Duper Negatron said:

I am thinking more recently, but point taken. I felt physical pain even reading the name Russ Michna 

I believe you are thinking of Alex Brink, that's who I thought of right away after 3 or 4 short throws in that game.

34 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

It was a learning experience, he will/can be better. Everyone wants growth to be a straight line but it doesn't always happen like that and I could find 100 examples both ways. 

I still like McGuire. 

On to Calgary. 

Momentum dies at the end of the game 100%

 

I've heard lots from all sorts of people on the concept of momentum. It's kind of interesting imop. 

Is momentum over rated I think so. However I do think it exists and on fringe types of teams it's more important than on good and great teams. 

 Does momentum exist between games I think so. Though it's greatly diminished especially for great poised teams. But the confidence and effects of a win streak is real. That 01 bomber team believed they'd always find ways to win. I think that's the effect of long term momentum. 

The tell tale sign of a bad team turning good is having their loses be close games. I think the equivalent for a good team becoming a Great team is minimizing momentum and just being consistent. 

3 hours ago, Tracker said:

I hope McGuire gets some significant time next game with a full complement of O-line and receivers. This will give an indication whether he has been unfairly maligned or if he has the right stuff.

And a real play book. I'd like to see a fairly veteran laden offense for the first half with McGuire. Maybe even a few drives to start for collaros. 

I hope Harris is good to get a few reps in too but idk if that will happen. 

I'd like to see dru brown get a half or a quarter. But mostly I don't want to see us go into the play offs on a bs losing streak. 

4 hours ago, wbbfan said:

I've heard lots from all sorts of people on the concept of momentum. It's kind of interesting imop. 

Is momentum over rated I think so. However I do think it exists and on fringe types of teams it's more important than on good and great teams. 

 Does momentum exist between games I think so. Though it's greatly diminished especially for great poised teams. But the confidence and effects of a win streak is real. That 01 bomber team believed they'd always find ways to win. I think that's the effect of long term momentum. 

The tell tale sign of a bad team turning good is having their loses be close games. I think the equivalent for a good team becoming a Great team is minimizing momentum and just being consistent. 

And a real play book. I'd like to see a fairly veteran laden offense for the first half with McGuire. Maybe even a few drives to start for collaros. 

I hope Harris is good to get a few reps in too but idk if that will happen. 

I'd like to see dru brown get a half or a quarter. But mostly I don't want to see us go into the play offs on a bs losing streak. 

I think this is an accurate assessment of momentum. It is psychological more than a tangible effect of play, but psychology plays a huge role in sports. Teams that feel they can steal momentum get on rolls, and even great teams can feel like they lose momentum. Look at playoff runs by lesser teams where their belief in the momentum they have built carries them further than expected. And in 2001 Calgary walked into Winnipeg needing an upset win to just make the playoffs. They did not care that the Bombers were playing their back-ups, to a man they said that winning that game gave them a belief that the Bombers were mortal and could be taken. And Dave Ritchie swears that resting his players lost their edge (call it momentum, call it focus), and that shift led both teams on a changed trajectory that resulted in an upset win for the Stamps in the Grey Cup. I agree that consistently great teams can overcome the momentum loss from a single game, but it absolutely does exist and affects both players and teams. 

Momentum is real and it has a huge impact on things. The truly great teams can change momentum more easily.

By that logic losses carry over game to game and I don't think that happens either. 

I don't think Saskatchewan has momentum because they have won a few in a row while playing like ****.