Kramdi over Rutledge 

Just now, 17to85 said:

 

If it was anyone but Edmonton bet he would have got in, but in a largely meaningless game against a qb like corny why not let the rooks get some more live fire action? Doesn't hurt anything.

then toss in Massie...Cooper...Hassell...Lawrence...and see what they bring...we know what the others do, also would also be nice to get some chemistry with them as well with starters if thats who we end up rolling with...We know what Holm and Parker have...seen it for a while now and they not magically gonna flip a switch and become lock down...if anything in the pressure games to close yr...and playoffs...and teams cranking it up a few notches they likely get exposed even more....but whatevs

And this could be a very key game for us...especially if the Lions win tomorrow too...then pressure is on us 

3 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Kramdi over Rutledge 

Again, it's Edmonton in a game that really means nothing. If they are feeling Rutledge needs a bit of a mental break this is the game to do it.

Just now, Booch said:

then toss in Massie...Cooper...Hassell...Lawrence...and see what they bring...we know what the others do, also would also be nice to get some chemistry with them as well with starters if thats who we end up rolling with...We know what Holm and Parker have...seen it for a while now and they not magically gonna flip a switch and become lock down...if anything in the pressure games to close yr...and playoffs...and teams cranking it up a few notches they likely get exposed even more....but whatevs

And this could be a very key game for us...especially if the Lions win tomorrow too...then pressure is on us 

I'm just having fun,  I didn't expect Darby to play this week. Really though I don't think they view first in the West as coming down to anything  other than beating BC to secure it. They clearly don't give too many fucks about this game.

3 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Kramdi over Rutledge 

dont get that either...Rutz was playing very well...and was said would be our ROY candidate if not for Schoen...and wonder how we designating the Canadians with 9 as starters....for free use of DI's...again see no point in that plan...why not try Cole in Gauthiers spot...and If you want to use all these Canadians use Ford in place of Holm in lieu of Thomas at DT...we know what he brings, so work a mostly all American Dline for a game with walker...sayles...and the 3 DE'nds...see what that produces...and then you can see if Ford has the chops to take defensive reps....Osh for all his good traits still has some baffling, and almost counter productive ones

7 minutes ago, Booch said:

dont get that either...Rutz was playing very well...and was said would be our ROY candidate if not for Schoen...and wonder how we designating the Canadians with 9 as starters....for free use of DI's...again see no point in that plan...why not try Cole in Gauthiers spot...and If you want to use all these Canadians use Ford in place of Holm in lieu of Thomas at DT...we know what he brings, so work a mostly all American Dline for a game with walker...sayles...and the 3 DE'nds...see what that produces...and then you can see if Ford has the chops to take defensive reps....Osh for all his good traits still has some baffling, and almost counter productive ones

Coaching staff has sat him more than once during games.

I'm obviously not aware of what his responsibilities are during games, but they clearly feel he's not meeting his assignments in some fashion. 

6 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Coaching staff has sat him more than once during games.

I'm obviously not aware of what his responsibilities are during games, but they clearly feel he's not meeting his assignments in some fashion. 

Hall said he was young and playing a lot more games, so he was hitting a wall. I think Hall meant that he hit a mental wall and needed some time for R&R and to watch. 

I don't think it's more than teaching a young player about being a pro and growing into that role, physically and mentally. 

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

Hall said he was young and playing a lot more games, so he was hitting a wall. I think Hall meant that he hit a mental wall and needed some time for R&R and to watch. 

I don't think it's more than teaching a young player about being a pro and growing into that role, physically and mentally. 

Could be a physical wall too and is just wearing down late in games.

More snaps than he's played in a season in his whole life.

30 minutes ago, Booch said:

then toss in Massie...Cooper...Hassell...Lawrence...and see what they bring...we know what the others do, also would also be nice to get some chemistry with them as well with starters if thats who we end up rolling with...We know what Holm and Parker have...seen it for a while now and they not magically gonna flip a switch and become lock down...if anything in the pressure games to close yr...and playoffs...and teams cranking it up a few notches they likely get exposed even more....but whatevs

And this could be a very key game for us...especially if the Lions win tomorrow too...then pressure is on us 

Call me crazy, but I like Parker more each game.  If he could just play a little tighter, he has the burst to knockdown/pick off a lot of passes.  He's a pretty sure tackler as well.

If you look at the numbers. Holm had 4 targets with 2 catches for under 50yrds I believe. Not bad really. Parkers numbers were a bit worse as he saw a good amount of targets...but still not horrible. Let them continue to get better. The elks WR's aren't exactly game changers so I like the match up

40 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Call me crazy, but I like Parker more each game.  If he could just play a little tighter, he has the burst to knockdown/pick off a lot of passes.  He's a pretty sure tackler as well.

Parker and Holms both look very close to bein excellent...now obviously close isn't good enough and is the difference between a TD or a incompletion. But I'm hopeful that as time goes on they will get better

Edited October 7, 20222 yr by Bigblue204

57 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Call me crazy, but I like Parker more each game.  If he could just play a little tighter, he has the burst to knockdown/pick off a lot of passes.  He's a pretty sure tackler as well.

I like Parker and see way more upside there....but unless u have a Alford/Nichols combo as rookies u are playing with fire...and last yr worked tho as Nichols had pro experience under his belt...these 2 guys don't

 

24 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

If you look at the numbers. Holm had 4 targets with 2 catches for under 50yrds I believe. Not bad really. Parkers numbers were a bit worse as he saw a good amount of targets...but still not horrible. Let them continue to get better. The elks WR's aren't exactly game changers so I like the match up

Parker and Holms both look very close to bein excellent...now obviously close isn't good enough and is the difference between a TD or a incompletion. But I'm hopeful that as time goes on they will get better

don't just look at that....he was spinning his wheels not knowing who/where to be on many a play...and some underneath stuff that Parker had to come in for

1 minute ago, Booch said:

I like Parker and see way more upside there....but unless u have a Alford/Nichols combo as rookies u are playing with fire...and last yr worked tho as Nichols had pro experience under his belt...these 2 guys don't

 

don't just look at that....he was spinning his wheels not knowing who/where to be on many a play...and some underneath stuff that Parker had to come in for

And with all that spinning etc he still didn't give up a lot of plays. That's my point. He's far from perfect but still holding it down well enough. Does he need to get better? Yes, and I like this weeks match up for him to do that.

1 hour ago, Booch said:

 

And this could be a very key game for us...especially if the Lions win tomorrow too...then pressure is on us 

This game is completely irrelevant if the Lions win. A win by us won’t clinch first, and a loss won’t cost us. BC needs to sweep us to catch first. If they lose in Toronto, then we have a chance to clinch first against the Elks. Otherwise it all comes down to the head-to-head. 

Edited October 7, 20222 yr by TrueBlue4ever

15 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

And with all that spinning etc he still didn't give up a lot of plays. That's my point. He's far from perfect but still holding it down well enough. Does he need to get better? Yes, and I like this weeks match up for him to do that.

that u are aware of....did u have a game scriopt?

7 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

This game is completely irrelevant if the Lions win. A win by us won’t clinch first, and a loss won’t cost us. BC needs to sweep us to catch first. If they lose in Toronto, then we have a chance to clinch first against the Elks. Otherwise it all comes down to the head-to-head. 

no it doesnt clinch...but it also keeps heat on Lions to have to win out...2 wins by us clinches...or 1 win if its the lions...plus you dont want to show any semblance of weakness...or go on a bit of a losing spell at the end....it's never favourable 

Edited October 7, 20222 yr by Booch

The games all matter until you clinch first. 
 

 

Just now, Geebrr said:

The games all matter until you clinch first. 
 

 

yup...even if u clinch they matter....2001 says hello...we rested and coasted...and got waxed

11 minutes ago, Booch said:

yup...even if u clinch they matter....2001 says hello...we rested and coasted...and got waxed

But they also rested and coasted last season and it worked out.

39 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

This game is completely irrelevant if the Lions win. A win by us won’t clinch first, and a loss won’t cost us. BC needs to sweep us to catch first. If they lose in Toronto, then we have a chance to clinch first against the Elks. Otherwise it all comes down to the head-to-head. 

BC still plays an extra game against Edmonton.

There is a world where BC sweeps us, but we still finish first - but we need to beat Edmonton and get to 14 wins.

We are 0-2 going into the bye week against 2 teams we had no business losing too. Let’s not make it 0-3. 
I fully expect a beat down of the Elks. 

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

But they also rested and coasted last season and it worked out.

not they way they did in 2001....they basically played last 2 games as a pre-season game...when you play to try and avoid injuries...thats usually when you will get one, or u do when the rested guys come back...and come in flat.....play with what got you there, and let the chips fall where they may....only thing I would do different is pull the QB earlier than normal if game is in hand...

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

If you look at the numbers. Holm had 4 targets with 2 catches for under 50yrds I believe. Not bad really. Parkers numbers were a bit worse as he saw a good amount of targets...but still not horrible. Let them continue to get better. The elks WR's aren't exactly game changers so I like the match up

Parker and Holms both look very close to bein excellent...now obviously close isn't good enough and is the difference between a TD or a incompletion. But I'm hopeful that as time goes on they will get better

I wouldn't be at all surprised if either or both are starters at their positions next season, with retirements, attrition and defections sure enough there will be changes in the secondary next year.

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

But they also rested and coasted last season and it worked out.

I like this year better. Last year was way too much time off between meaningful games. It worked out well in the end, but both playoff games were closer than they should have been. 

50 minutes ago, Booch said:

that u are aware of....did u have a game scriopt?

It's ok for rookies to need to get better. And it's ok to say they have looked adequate. 

17 minutes ago, Booch said:

not they way they did in 2001....they basically played last 2 games as a pre-season game...when you play to try and avoid injuries...thats usually when you will get one, or u do when the rested guys come back...and come in flat.....play with what got you there, and let the chips fall where they may....only thing I would do different is pull the QB earlier than normal if game is in hand...

How was that game in calgary last year not just glorified preseason? Collaros got less than  a half, dru brown played most of it,  the big calgary comeback happened when the defense was basically all the backups... 

 

I agree that I don't like the idea of resting guys and all that, play to win every game, but obviously our coaches don't see it the same way.

2 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

How was that game in calgary last year not just glorified preseason? Collaros got less than  a half, dru brown played most of it,  the big calgary comeback happened when the defense was basically all the backups... 

 

I agree that I don't like the idea of resting guys and all that, play to win every game, but obviously our coaches don't see it the same way.

yea...and our 2 play-off games last yr were less than sharp/stellar...never take foot off the gas is my mindset and belief

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

yea...and our 2 play-off games last yr were less than sharp/stellar...never take foot off the gas is my mindset and belief

I mostly agree with the mindset of “don’t coast”, but after 2001 Dave Ritchie swore he’d never again rest players and the very next year he loses MOP Milt Stegall to injury in the last meaningless game of the year. Given our injury woes this year, would hate to lose Collaros or Schoen or Demski or Jefferson or Alexander to an injury in a meaningless game, or a “hurt” player tweaks something and needs to sit out in a more important game. This team will be judged by our Grey Cup success, not on how we look in game 16 against Edmonton.