Jump to content

Lost in it all


Booch

Recommended Posts

Was fact we did a lot on offence and had the 2 big drives without arguably our best receiver and Nichols comfort/go-to guy in Dressler.

Thorpe seemed to really step up in crunch and take some of the looks Dressler would have been getting in those drives...a good sign any way you look at it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

Was fact we did a lot on offence and had the 2 big drives without arguably our best receiver and Nichols comfort/go-to guy in Dressler.

Thorpe seemed to really step up in crunch and take some of the looks Dressler would have been getting in those drives...a good sign any way you look at it

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

Edited by yogi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BomberBall said:

Pretty sure Dressler didn't take a single snap on offense in the 2nd half.  He was still out there holding for Medlock, but when the O was on the field, he was on the sidelines, standing next to Davis.

as has been mentioned many times, he was injured in the 1st half....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I found it incredible how often Lankford was being targeted....and yet they still managed to find him almost every time. Not sure if it was called to him every time, or if he was just getting open every time, so they used him....but man, they went to him over and over and over again...

I thought it was because they just plugged him into Dresslers spot. Meaning, that all the plays and touches normally designed for Dress just went to Lankford instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, yogi said:

Ya but if you ignore Lankford's TD he actually played receiver pretty average statistically speaking.

If you're going to talk stats, it's not valid to cherry pick and omit certain plays... if you are, you're just trying to fit it into a predetermined narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in it all part III:

Although the D didn't have a particularly spectacular night, they did stuff the Als on 1st and goal from our 1 after the crazy fumble recovery by Cunningham at the end of the 3rd. The extra 4 points from a TD would've meant the Bombers (hypothetically) would've needed 16 points (still a 2-score game), instead of 12, and that would've only tied it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably going to be the kiss of death, but I thought Lankford handled himself very nicely.  Drew a long PI call as well.  Thorpe and Lankford, both have good size.  Thorpe plays a really strong, run you over type game (replacement for Sheppard, but better imo), while Lankford has the speed to pull away from guys, and I think he's figured out how to really use it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in it all VI.....

 

I was at the game and wasn't really able to tell due to the lack of the replays on the screens. But the ball that was stripped and then knocked back into play by montreal and Cunningham picking it up.....What is the ruling on that? Did the ball actually go out of bounds? It looked like it did but if it goes out of bounds in the air and is knocked back in is it still live? That was an unbelievable play by mtl either way!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Lost in it all VI.....

 

I was at the game and wasn't really able to tell due to the lack of the replays on the screens. But the ball that was stripped and then knocked back into play by montreal and Cunningham picking it up.....What is the ruling on that? Did the ball actually go out of bounds? It looked like it did but if it goes out of bounds in the air and is knocked back in is it still live? That was an unbelievable play by mtl either way!

 

The ref was staring at the line so he would have had the best view of if it touched the stripe or not. Nice athletic play for sure, but also risky in that it would have been MTL possession if he lets it go out of bounds there but by tossing it back in he leaves open the chance that we recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nash00 said:

The ref was staring at the line so he would have had the best view of if it touched the stripe or not. Nice athletic play for sure, but also risky in that it would have been MTL possession if he lets it go out of bounds there but by tossing it back in he leaves open the chance that we recover.

Watched the game re-cap and paused it to see that the ball did land in bounds by about half a foot... didn't like the call at the time, but they did get that one right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...