TBURGESS

Or different scheme, different defence in general, different players around him... But yea, you are right.. It's just a simple they are right or we are wrong... Smh. It's the same defence in general. It's Halls scheme in both Regina and Winnipeg. So another fail for you.

Wow. Talking about looking for stuff to complain about. It is an unprofessional feed with people talking over each other etc. It's still great to see some football again.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. Agree to disagree. There's more than one way to be a good QB. If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket. If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed. Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back. He turned out to be a one trick pony. His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him. Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line. Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB. You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. What in the less than a game of playing time behind a horrid O line makes you think that Marve's one dimensional and can't throw from the pocket?

Ottawa looks as bad as ever. DeMarco looks about the way I remembered him. Hamilton looks better than I expected. Mathews looks like he belongs. Kinda unprofessional feed, but still great to see some football again.

Sometimes the coaches do have a method to their madness. June 14th - after the 1st preseason game and before the 2nd preseason game - is the first cutdown day. Rosters need to be down to 65 players. So that first preseason game is really the only shot some of those fringe players will have at making a case at staying. These fringe players and backups are going to be injury replacements during the year, so it is important to get an in game evaluation of them even if they aren't likely to be playing. I would also rather give more of the pencilled in starters more time in the 2nd preseason game to ramp up and get into a rhythm for when the games actually matter. Best argument for taking so many fringe players so far. I kind of doubt, however, that players who don't make it to the second week of TC will become our injury replacements. I'd hope that they'd come from the guys who just failed to make the first game roster and maybe those kind of cuts from other teams.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions. Where did I say that? You are arguing using circle logic. You say you can't say who should play because you haven't been to TC, etc yet you feel qualified to criticize who will be playing even though you haven't been to TC, etc. Take a look at my reply a couple of posts ago if you're really interested to know who I'd send. I told you why I don't blindly agree with the coaches. That's not a circular argument.

And where will the QB be when he finds them? In the _ _ _ _ _ _ In the pocket or rolling out or scrambling.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions. So what do you go by, then? You don't trust the coaches and argue they're bringing the wrong type of players to the exhibition game, but you say that the decision on who to bring is up to the coaches and you have no input on who that should be. If you think they're the wrong players, that's a totally fair opinion to have, but then suggest who those right players are -- otherwise, it's an opinion based on nothing but spite for the coaches we've had in town the last 7 years. Which isn't a great way to analyze a roster. I already told everyone that I'd bring more of the starters, less of the fringe players. I'd bring the new players that are pencilled in as starters like Westerman and those who look like they are pushing for starting spots in TC. I'd leave those players who are 3 and 4 down the depth charts in Winnipeg and use them next week if they still have a chance to make the team by that time. We need to decide on who our starting Receivers and RB's will be. The O line on our roster will make it hard to analyse them. We need to decide who our starting LB's will be. The D line on the roster will make that analysis harder too. In short bring a more competitive roster that gives us the best shot at making the right decisions and give our new starters a chance to play with some of the guys they will need to be in sync with in the real season.

Go back and read what I typed. It's not they need to win, it's they didn't build the roster to win. Two entirely different things. I want them to actually try to win, but that's not the same as arguing that they need to win. I remember all the same arguments when we got toasted something like 52-0 in a preseason game. The score is irrelevant, it doesn't matter they told me. We'll do better in the real season they told me. Preseason isn't indicative of how this team will play they told me. You're just being negative they told me. You just come here to complain. I hope we don't get killed. I hope that O line can protect the QB's and make holes for the RB's. I hope all those backups on D can play. I know this game won't be indicative of how we play this year because almost none of our starters will get a chance to play.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. Agree to disagree. There's more than one way to be a good QB. If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket. If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed. Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back. He turned out to be a one trick pony. His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him. Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line. Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions.

If you were Tburg...it was today. What a load of ____. According to CFL.CA First Roster Cuts – Sunday, June 14 Prior to 11:59pm ET on Sunday June 14, all CFL teams must reduce their roster to 65 players. Final Roster Cuts – Saturday, June 20 As of 10:00pm ET on Saturday, teams are required to reduce their roster of players under contract to 46 active players (excluding 6-game injured and those transferred to the one game injured list). Three of the active players must be identified as quarterbacks and a team must carry a minimum of 20 National players. Also known as ‘Cut-Down Day’.

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them. For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter. Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator. That's not me Mike. I don't turn everything into a personal matter. I simply don't back down when others do. Sure, I like to agitate. Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun. Keeps the conversations going too. TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup. You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? It doesn't. I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off. Not a lot of time, but some. I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again. I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line. Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO. No, that's actually not a fact. We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion. Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? My answer is: Does it really matter? To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win." Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that. Tim Burke??? Yup, that's the way to make a point around here. You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win? I'm certain we have better players than we are sending. So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game. It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team. In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all. Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'. I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year. I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year. That would mean sending less fringe players this week. We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster. I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field. It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible. I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots. I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent. I could go on, but you get my point. Is my way the only way? Of course not! Never said it was.

Of course we aren't going to bring 80 players. 1. Lots of the guys on tomorrow's roster aren't on the bubble. Most won't start again for us. 2. Lots of the guys who stayed home don't have their spots locked up. 3. When players get hurt, I've never suggested that they shouldn't have been there, let alone going on and on about it.

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them. For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter. Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator. That's not me Mike. I don't turn everything into a personal matter. I simply don't back down when others do. Sure, I like to agitate. Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun. Keeps the conversations going too. TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup. You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? It doesn't. I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off. Not a lot of time, but some. I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again. I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line. Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO.

You actually think I'm ripping anyone a new one with my posts these days? LOL. You seem to have forgotten what it looks like when I'm ripping someone a new one. Go back and see my posts regarding Kelly or Mack if you want to see what it really looks like.

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS. That should open up receivers downfield. The key is finding them and getting the ball to them. Can Marve do that? Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it. You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot. Marve's no where near that yet. I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC. Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them.

Why do you keep bringing that up? Nobody, but nobody, is trying to turn Marve into strictly a pocket passer. But why you are missing is the suggestion that Marve must be able to show the ability to pass from the pocket. There's a big difference. It's not me bringing it up. I was replying to a post where the poster said that Marve needs to prove himself as a pocket passer. That's pure bunk. I'm not 'Missing anything', I'm disagreeing with the premise. There's more than one way to play QB effectively. You're splitting hairs by using the word 'strictly'. Marve is a scrambler with a big arm who's accurate on the run. He doesn't just run the ball, he extends plays with his legs and throws. That's something that most QB's can't do, Willy included. Before anyone goes off about how I hate Willy or how I think Marve should be our starting QB, that's not what I'm saying. Willy is our best pocket passer. I have zero problems with him being our #1 QB. I'd like to see him get pulled earlier in games he isn't being effective, but that's a coaching issue IMO, not a QB one.

What a lot of crap from some posters. For the record (Although it shouldn't need to be said) I wouldn't be here if I didn't bleed blue and gold and I love the Bombers I like about 90% of the changes this offseason I don't sign on to find something to complain about. I sign on to discuss Football. I totally understand what preseason games are for and that they are extended practises. That's not the same as saying I like to see my team get beaten up by anyone. I'd watch the game if it was on TV or being streamed. I'll listen on CJOB if I can't watch. I take a ton of crap on these forums simply because I don't agree with everything the Bombers do. (Maybe it's because I'm right way more often than I'm wrong) If you don't like my opinion, then disagree with it. Argue the post, not the poster.

One of the big reasons Hurl signed with us in the first place is because he would be given a chance to start here. The Riders, who've seen Hurl daily for 3 years and had him as a starter for 5 games, don't see him as a starter. Either they are wrong, or we are wrong, or it takes a different level of talent to be a Bomber starter than a Rider starter.

No one should expect that it will look like a regular season game because there will be tons of changes in personal, but folks should expect CFL quality players because that's what every player out there wants to be. The point of preseason is to find out who can play well with and against CFL calibre talent. A 90% rookie team doesn't tell you anything about playing with CFL quality talent. Assuming Toronto plays their first team guys for less than a quarter, it doesn't tell you much about playing against CFL quality talent either. I didn't agree with it when we got beat 52-0 in a preseason game a couple of years ago and I don't agree with it now. Hopefully the next preseason game will have most of our starters in for the first quarter or so so we get a look at where were really at this year.

Based on the depth chart, the team isn't interested in winning the first pre season game so I hope there's lots of work for Brohm and Marve so the coaches can see which is the better choice for #2 QB. The O line we're sending to TO is better for Marve's style of game than Brohm's. Brohm 'isn't a terrible option' is hardly a glowing endorsement of our #2 QB. I agree that it's his job to lose though. Trying to turn Marve into a pocket passer is a horrible idea because it doesn't play to his strengths. It would be like trying to turn Willy into a scrambler so he's not a one dimensional pocket QB. Reilly scrambles and runs and is pretty darn effective. I'd love to have that kind of change of pace at #2.

Why's that? Very few of our starters are on the depth chart. Watching Willy behind that O line would bring back bad memories from last year. We're obviously not trying to win the game with that group, just looking at the players so I doubt it's going to be much of game.