Jump to content

Fire Richie Hall !!!! DISGRACE COACH


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

then why leave him in there?  he really wasn't doing much to move the ball... so on top of being hurt, he was ineffective.... let the other guys get some time.

I'm not trying to be super negative, because I am happy how far the team has come... I just thing there is still room for improvement as we approach the games that matter.  Get Davis, and even LeFevour some time down the stretch... cause if Nichols was to go down in the playoffs, we need our backups to be ready to jump in and be effective.

I'd rather win the game personally.  Do you trust Davis to run ball-control offense?  A turnover or two and Bombers might lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Nicholls was at least a threat to be successful downfield - putting Davis in would have allowed BC to key on Harris even more. 

Maybe, but as I mentioned before don't forget Davis has a pretty strong arm.  Maybe not as quick a release, but certainly does have arm strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 8:05 PM, 17to85 said:

they were down by 3 TDs.  Prevent defense and they wasted all sorts of time trying to come back and never got the required big plays or onside kicks. 

The thing I find funny in all this... if the roles were reversed and the Bombers scored 2 garbage time TDs to make the game close... the exact same people would say: who cares, our offense was still **** and they got lucky against a garbage time, prevent defense...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mbrg said:

The Bombers won.

Why did they win?  How did they win?

90 - 95% of the credit goes to defence and special teams.  They do not deserve less credit than that.  They might deserve more.

 

This place could stand to be a little less internetty at times...

True, but Jonathon Jennings has been making quite a few opposing defenses look good as of late, so that may be part of it.  It may sound like being a perfectionist, but I still think defenses should finish games and not decide to get all sloppy at the end there.  It's not about the score or the lead, it's about the mentality.  It may not get us in trouble with a big lead, but if we're defending a one possession lead or so in crunch time, I wouldn't trust Richie Hall to be aggressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

True, but Jonathon Jennings has been making quite a few opposing defenses look good as of late, so that may be part of it.  It may sound like being a perfectionist, but I still think defenses should finish games and not decide to get all sloppy at the end there.  It's not about the score or the lead, it's about the mentality.  It may not get us in trouble with a big lead, but if we're defending a one possession lead or so in crunch time, I wouldn't trust Richie Hall to be aggressive.

losing 2 starters in our secondary couldn`t have had anything to do with it either tho eh.. plus our starting DE..

nah. couldn`t have been it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2017 at 10:29 AM, J5V said:

How many seconds does it take to score a TD? 

 

irrelevant because the Bombers hadn't given up any over the top stuff all game and were playing specifically to take that away. How long does it take to score a touchdown when you need to make 4 or 5 plays to get into the endzone? More than 20....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

irrelevant because the Bombers hadn't given up any over the top stuff all game and were playing specifically to take that away. How long does it take to score a touchdown when you need to make 4 or 5 plays to get into the endzone? More than 20....

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

Edited by J5V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J5V said:

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

Yup adds more fuel to the need to fire him when the season and Grey Cup is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J5V said:

Watch the hilites and note the times. BC needed only 21 seconds to score their first TD starting at 2:27 of the 4th from the 46 yard line. BC needed only 17 seconds to score their next TD starting at :47 of the 4th starting at the 50 yard line. Neither TD required 4 or 5 plays. The first needed 3 plays and the second needed only two. If Rainey hadn't tripped over his own feet BC's second TD would have only taken 1 play instead of two. At that rate 21 seconds would have been plenty of time to score a third had they been lucky enough to get the onside kick. That's Hall's Prevent defense for you.

1st BC Touchdown:

E289663_F-_A095-46_ED-85_FE-5317229_B0_F

2nd BC Touchdown:

8935221_F-_C5_DE-4_CB6-_A0_C1-2445106_A7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost missed this ... thanks for the play-by-play breakdown, it's much better than the hilite package and shows all the plays.

17to85 is right in that it takes several plays and a bit longer to get into the end zone. However, it still shows a very soft prevent D that offers little to no resistance to BC scoring 2 quick TDs in the last few minutes. I still maintain that had BC got lucky with that final kick, 22 seconds was plenty of time to find the end zone yet again, and victory. We got lucky this time but this Prevent D has been burned in the past and is going to get burned again. I hate, hate, hate this Prevent D. Way too soft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎12 at 9:18 PM, J5V said:

I guess it's just that we see guys like Elimimian and Singleton and wonder what kind of impact a player like that might have on our team. 

Just as other teams look at our Heath, Randle, or Leggett and wonder the same thing.  I get that Hurl is not an all star but the decision to play him allows us to afford and play  other all stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gcn11 said:

Just as other teams look at our Heath, Randle, or Leggett and wonder the same thing.  I get that Hurl is not an all star but the decision to play him allows us to afford and play  other all stars.

True but if we're going to be as successful as a team like Calgary, and I assume every Bomber fan wants that, we need the best players possible at all positions. I think we can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2017 at 6:39 PM, Mr Dee said:

I don’t know if there are any teams, CFL or NFL, who don’t have a prevent defence in place for these situations. It’s all about keeping the ball ahead of you, killing the clock, making the tackles, and execution. 

It helps exponentially to have your offence get first downs...

Problem is Hall's defense has players backed off too far receivers have all that space to rip off 20 yards easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, J5V said:

True but if we're going to be as successful as a team like Calgary, and I assume every Bomber fan wants that, we need the best players possible at all positions. I think we can do better.

Hopefully some of the OL they drafted turn out to be the real deal. Finding another good Canadian guard (hello Sukh Chungh) would go a long way towards putting the team in that position. But for now, it is what it is. As I always say, at least they are no longer sacrificing the OL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

No team, not even Calgary, has the best players at all positions....it just doesn't work that way.

Nobody said that and while Calgary may not have the best players at all positions they may have better players at all positions than any other team in the league. We need to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, J5V said:

Nobody said that and while Calgary may not have the best players at all positions they may have better players at all positions than any other team in the league. We need to change that.

I completely disagree with that statement as well. In fact I know we have better players in some positions than them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I completely disagree with that statement as well. In fact I know we have better players in some positions than them. 

Ya not sure of the reasoning behind laughter but I agree, we have 2 DBs who i'd take over theirs.. I'd take loffler as well.  our o-line is on par with or better then..

 

Harris and Messem is almost a wash but I'd take Harris as he is better overall IMO at catching and running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

Ya not sure of the reasoning behind laughter but I agree, we have 2 DBs who i'd take over theirs.. I'd take loffler as well.  our o-line is on par with or better then..

Harris and Messem is almost a wash but I'd take Harris as he is better overall IMO at catching and running. 

Not laughing at anyone just laughing that after 2 (failed) attempts no one understands what I'm saying. I'm sure it's just me. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J5V said:

Not laughing at anyone just laughing that after 2 (failed) attempts no one understands what I'm saying. I'm sure it's just me. ^_^

well the way you worded it made it sound like you believe Calgary, player for player, has the best in each spot and that doesn't really hold any water. Now if you meant the sum of all their parts together means they have a level field of skill or some such.. then that I would agree with.. they don't have any holes or glaring weak spots on their roster.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...