TBURGESS

BLM had 3 TD drives. Nichols zero.

No, I watched the game on TV. It seemed to me, that Nichols was vacating the pocket early to the short side of the field, thereby eliminating at least half of the field. Calgary did a good to great job of taking Harris away in the flats, forcing Nichols to throw deep, which he isn't great at or running the ball, which he isn't great at. Nichols chose to throw out of bounds rather than throw up a 50-50 ball. Put Streveler in that situation and he'll make a few more first downs with his legs. As Nichols only threw for about 80 yards before 3:30 was left in the game, it didn't matter if Nichols is the better passer.

Yes, we beat the Lions on turnovers and Nichols had a whole 160 yards passing. In fact, the Lions won the next week when Nichols managed 214 yards but gave up 3 Int's. Booch... Keep pounding on those 28 years like you're making some point. I don't blame all 28 years on this regime. Never have. Never will. I've only blamed this regime for their 5 years and counting. You can't know that healthy Nichols would have won more games then Streveler. Nichols injury might have cost us a game or two, it might have been a blessing in disguise, and It might not have cost us anything. The tear it all down won't work argument, when no one is suggesting tearing it all down. No one is even saying that we're not in a better place now than when this regime took over. You can keep a foundation in place even if you change out the coaching staff. I'd argue that some coaches are good at turning poor teams into competitive teams, but sometimes can't get the team over the hump from competitive to the Grey Cup. The comparison to Calgary, the best team in the league who, won 13 or more games, came in 1st in the division, and made the Grey Cup every year under Dickenson is absolutely ridiculous. FTR: Calgary would have fired MOS after his second year for missing the playoffs twice. MOS is 45-45 with the Bombers and it's good enough for most around here and for managment. I doubt he'd have lasted 5 years on many teams in the league. Are you trying to argue that effort, culture, players wanting to be here, and an exciting team (Which I'd argue we aren't) is more important than getting to and winning Grey Cups? That's exactly why I say that folks are OK with the team we have.

You're trying to move the argument away from 'most fans and management are just happy with a playoff game and a playoff win every now and then' because you know it's true. It's not about the first 3 games. Streveler went 1-2 . Should have started the next game or two, cuz Nichols was obviously not ready yet. Coaching mistake IMO.

A bunch of excuses then a dumb question, that I'll answer just cuz you asked... Most folks around here want this regime to get more years because they took us from doormats to competitive. Just look at this thread if you want some examples. They, like you, make excuses for the losses and point to all the coulda shoulda woulda moments in games that caused us to lose and don't want to even hear about the other teams coulda woulda shoulda moments especially when we win. Management knows that if they just make the playoffs and maybe win a playoff game or two, then most fans will be satisfied. Keep everyone. We'll be better next year cuz consistency and patience will eventually get us there. 5 years so far and we've got a playoff win.

PLAP created one of the highest scoring teams in the league despite having to use a rookie QB for 4 games, an average QB for the rest, below average receivers and 6 starting Canadians. I expect he will be in the running for a HC job this year. Harris is the guy who makes our offense work. Stop him and force Nichols to win games is the other teams recipe for success. Most teams can't do it, but Calgary did. Nichols needed to take some chances. He needed to trust his O line to give him time, stand in and deliver. Take a few hits if he had to. Instead, he rolled out and threw to the 3rd row or ran for a couple of yards over and over and over.

We won less games this year than we did last year, even tho we had a better team on paper. We didn't get a home playoff game. We were 4th overall and 3rd in the West. We played our best games during the stretch run, which hasn't happened for years. We had one of, if not the, healthiest team going into the play offs. I'd guess, without checking, that we had the least number of man games lost to injury during the season. We beat a Riders team who were forced to play their backup QB by 5 points in the semi and that backup QB missed 4 open receivers who were behind our defense. We lost to a Stamps team with 4 injured starting receivers. The progress has been painfully slow. It took 5 years to get a single playoff win, but that win saved MOS's job. Winnipeg Blue Bombers fans and management are happy with being a middle of the pack team that wins enough games to make it to the playoffs and who sometimes even wins a playoff game.

I can only think of one game this year that Nichols was a difference maker. The rest, Streveler could have won too. I'd be happy to have both back next year except for the fact that Nichols will be getting $450K. If your making that kind of money, you better be significantly better than a rookie and Nichols simply said, wasn't. We could offer him less money in the off season but I don't see Walters/MOS doing that and I doubt Nichols would agree to it. I expect that both are back next year. Nichols is the starter. Streveler will get less playing time than he got this year unless Nichols is hurt. Some short yardage and a few series to slowly develop him. By years end, we will be wondering if Streveler is good enough, if he can read defenses, if he can run our offense. He'll want a starters job so he'll sign with another team who gives him a real chance.

Nichols salary is going up by 50K next year, so no, it's not the same SMS hit as this year.

Can he? Who knows? No way to tell because he wasn't given a chance to find out. Nichols makes $450K next year. Is he worth that much? Nope. Would an extra $450K help us out in other areas? You bet. We could bring in a decent backup QB and a play making receiver or returner. Would it be better to live through the growing pains that are likely coming or stay with Nichols and hope the rest of the team can win games so he only has to mange them and not throw picks?

Let me get this straight.. You're blaming the loss on a 23 year old QB who came in cold and threw a single pass, not on the expensive vet QB who hadn't even thrown for 100 yards before the last 4 minutes of the game? SMH!

Harris - Heart and soul of the team Medlock - Made all the FG's including a 57 yarder Alexander - Forced a fumble that almost turned the game around for us. Roh for tracking down BLM from behind.

I think it comes down to can the Stamps stop or at least control Harris. If they can, I don't see us getting the win unless we win the turnover battle by 2.

I mostly agree, but I'd give them the edge at receiver. We're likely starting Lankford. I'd give them the edge at DB. Their group is better than ours because they don't have a weak spot like Fogg. Our kick coverage wasn't good last week.

Seems about right. What did Chungh do though?

Every flag causes a delay. I have more faith in the eye in the sky and their multiple angles than I do in a ref on the field whose viewing angle might be distorted or blocked. That was the whole reason the last 2 QB head shots were 'missed'.

I'm not suggesting that a team would have to challenge. I suggesting that the eye in the sky be allowed to apply the penalty without a challenge. They are already supposed to be spotting concussions.

Seems like the wrong way to fix the problem to me. Just let the eye in the sky call them.

The challenge aspect of the game used to be broken, but now it's mostly fixed. Add in some additional eye in the sky responsibilities for roughing penalties and it's good to go IMO. Challenges are supposed to be to fix obvious reffing mistakes. The clear cut ones that you are complaining about. Coaches having to state what they are challenging doesn't remove the fishing aspect. It just means they can't challenge one thing and hope for a different thing to be called (which is a good change). Adding more challenges only if the coach is right wouldn't make any difference to us this week. MOS still wouldn't have challenged the forward pass/lateral cuz it wasn't a guarantee so he may lose his timeout and his ability to challenge again. He wouldn't have challenged the PI in the end zone for the same reason. Jones on the other hand would have used his 2nd challenge to get the hit to the head called then would have used a 3rd one as a de facto time out on the next play.

1 challenge is enough, especially if the eye in the sky can overturn badly missed calls like head shots. I don't want a return to fishing challenges every game.

That's the same story we've told for the last decade or so about the Bomber/Rider grey cup.

I don't think the PI would have been overturned, so I agree with MOS on that one. I do think it was a lateral, not a forward pass, but we didn't get the ball, so it would have been a wasted challenge, because it would just have pushed them back.

Crazy indeed. Bridge missed a wide open guy in the end zone, missed a deep ball to a wide open guy that resulted in PI and grossly under threw a wide open receiver for a pick. He also had some bad luck hitting an upright for another open receiver in the end zone. Any one of those plays makes up for his running.

Franklin? Wore out his welcome in Toronto. Still has some upside. I agree that Lulay is done. New coach may want his own QB, so Jennings could be available. He's an upgrade over Bridge and doesn't have Collaros' concussion history. Glenn? Too old. Likely done. Reilly and BLM are both going to be 'available'. Would the Riders pay big bucks for either and would either want to go there considering their O line?

Harris - The guy that makes our offense work Wolo - Great TD Bennett - Game saving special teams tackle HH - The goal post for taking a TD away from the Riders