TrueBlue

yeah the new offence excuse doesn't fly when you have trouble hanging onto the ball. If you can't catch then you're not much of a receiver. I wouldn't say it's an excuse but it's more of an adjustment for him. It's not time yet to throw in the towel.

yeah the new offence excuse doesn't fly when you have trouble hanging onto the ball. If you can't catch then you're not much of a receiver. That's what they said about Adarius Bowman. ...and Kamau Peterson.

AC for QB Coach in 2014!

I don't know I think he is being properly used. You look at his success in BC and he was always catching the ball over his shoulder on the run. He's more of a deep threat guy, and we're getting him to run 5-10 yard hitch patterns. Plus it's a new offence for him. I don't think he is a bust, just yet.

There's no film on Smith so the Ticats were a little vulnerable with how they could scheme for him. They made some adjustments at half and he wasn't near as effective and ended the game with a less than 50% completion. He has promise, but calling him the "real deal" is a bit of a stretch after only one productive half.

As much as it might be hard to admit, going for the field goal was the right given that it would have been third and ten. Take the points and be down 3. The D was playing pretty good to that point and you'd have to trust that we'd get the ball back with time to shoot for another field goal to tie it.I disagree, kicking the field goal is playing for a tie. The position on the field the Bombers were in You gotta try and score the touchdown and even if you don't make it you're still down by 6 with plenty of time to get the ball back and win. As it ended up they were still down by 6 when they got the ball back. you're sitting at 3 wins on the season might as well go out trying to win rather than playing the passive game, epsecially when the offense was actually marching pretty well on the drive.If you go for it on third and ten and don't convert your still down by 6. The following possession for TO resulted in a field goal meaning we would have been down by 9 at that point. Therefore we wouldn't have had the same shot to win the game at the end as we did. but at the time you make the decision you assume your defense is going to step up and prevent a score. I'll take my chances with a defense when the turnover might occur that deep in the argos own end. You can pin your hopes on a turnover either way whether you're down by 3 or down by 6. The only difference is that being down by 3 you have the option to tie with a FG. I say this all based on the fact that it was third and ten with a gameplan that had almost completely abdoned the run at that point. If it had been third and 6 or less, then the right call is likely to try and get the first down.

But Toronto would have started from their 13 yard line instead of their 35. If they had then moved the ball the same distance they likely would have punted rather than go for the FG. If they punt they are then likely putting us back within our own 20 this giving us a longer field to have to score a major.

I recommend reading the very first post in this thread. You might find your answer.

Sure Hall has improved with time but I wouldn't be comfortable just yet with him starting games for us next year. He has very little mobility, in or out of the pocket and the arm strength is a concern as well. He's doing a better job of reading the field and he's definitely not afraid of taking chances. He should be here competing next season but based on what I've seen so far, the QB situation still needs to be resolved through some acquisitions.

Say for the sake of argument we swing a trade with Calgary for Drew Tate before the expansion draft: who does Ottawa grab for their two QBs?DeMarco from BC (after watching him play last night I doubt it)? Nichols from Edmonton (maybe if they get past injury concerns)? A Montreal QB (Smith for his potential or one of their unprovens)? Hamilton's #2 (really)? Collaros, Glenn & Willie are FA's So which two ahead of Hall (especially if he continues his improvement)? Who do you see Ottawa taking if there are no other trades (outside of Calgary and something will happen there)? Which non-FA QB is better than Max Hall? They will sign Glenn as a free agent and take Tate and/or LeFevor as backup. Tate or BML will be traded .... its just a question of which club will bid the highest Mitchell is definitely not going anywhere.

As much as it might be hard to admit, going for the field goal was the right given that it would have been third and ten. Take the points and be down 3. The D was playing pretty good to that point and you'd have to trust that we'd get the ball back with time to shoot for another field goal to tie it. I disagree, kicking the field goal is playing for a tie. The position on the field the Bombers were in You gotta try and score the touchdown and even if you don't make it you're still down by 6 with plenty of time to get the ball back and win. As it ended up they were still down by 6 when they got the ball back. you're sitting at 3 wins on the season might as well go out trying to win rather than playing the passive game, epsecially when the offense was actually marching pretty well on the drive. If you go for it on third and ten and don't convert your still down by 6. The following possession for TO resulted in a field goal meaning we would have been down by 9 at that point. Therefore we wouldn't have had the same shot to win the game at the end as we did.

As much as it might be hard to admit, going for the field goal was the right given that it would have been third and ten. Take the points and be down 3. The D was playing pretty good to that point and you'd have to trust that we'd get the ball back with time to shoot for another field goal to tie it.

I've said it before, but they need to adjust the plan for the 200 level prices so that there isn't a double price jump from the lower rows in one section to the next. (Eg. 205-206).

Sometimes there are just issues with how people respond when someone disagrees with them. Half the time it's being construed as personal, when it doesn't need to be. Instead of a disagreement being taken as an attack, why can't it just provoke a deeper discussion about the subject? Do you feel like you need to have the boxing gloves on every time you visit this site? If so then, maybe take a step back for a moment, rethink your thoughts and what you'd like to achieve by coming here. If you feel the need to be defensive, then it's probably because you're unprepared for when someone might actually question or challenge what you're saying. Answering someone's question with another question does not provoke good discussion. Especially when that someone is looking for clarity and not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Genius!

Lol I hope you are joking !! I think he just wanted to say "Marsh Madness".

I can see us protecting Dunn over Parker. Also hard to believe we wouldn't protect someone like Kelly, or Ford. I'd also move Etienne to the first protected group and could see them wanting to protect Labbe in there somewhere.

it also would be nice if the O-line could give him more than 1.5 steamboats to pick a target and throw. Hall was rushing almost every throw as on almost every throwing play there was a free Alouette coming at him unblocked. I know that this may have been "designed" - but to just let a guy run at our QB unblocked on almost every play? Really? They highlighted a play yesterday where our o-line didn't even shift in covering a 5-man Montreal rush. Amazing how even when we are man-on-man, we are outnumbered.

I think Denmark is seizing an opportunity right now, knowing that he's as expendable as any import receiver on our roster right now. He's playing hard and showing the reasons why he needs to be here next season.

The risk with Collaros at this point is far less than what it would have been with Reilly last off-season. I think you have got a good enough sampling to see how he works, and his ability under pressure. I am not surprised at all that he is our #1 target, if indeed the list that Atomic provided was in order of preference.

It's a big risk going with Tate especially given the heated exchanges he has been known to have. I think it's best to avoid him now.

Yup, 21-0. I'll take it.

The mods can definitely address anything that seems to be going over the top. The state of the franchise certainly pins a negative attitude on a lot of discussion that happens around here. Regardless, there is always a fine line between condescension and the personal attacking of posters. Anyone who has any concerns with specific posts or posters, I encourage to PM me or any one of the other mods.

At this point, the whole damn thing needs to be blown up.

Who says he will be the guy to decide? He says there's a plan, and that's all you need to know. Plus, who says we even have a head coach when a signing is made?