17to85

2 other teams have already decided they don't need the guy he's a runningback, those guys don't get 3 chances to fail

I think that is more evidence to the fact that they ARE dime a dozen.... Americans are always being replaced because there's so damned many of them. Only the Canadians get a chance to really establish themselves over multiple years. Is there any team that really lacks a capable effective running back or 3?

This is pretty much exactly what I thought was happening. He looked like he'd panic and run directly into trouble. Sure he may have a suitable amount of time but was his receiver open? He's trying to make something happen at that stage in the game, throwing into the stands wasn't an option. Single coverage was further downfield - I'm sure guys like Denmark and Moore can get open one on one. Denmark has stunk this year, even said so himself in the paper and Moore, if he plays is going up against the defences best cover man, the rest of our receivers probably don't even belong on a professional field of play. Here's an example, against Toronto Marve had Denmark open deep and missed the throw by 10 yards. It's not that there's no options to throw it deep, it's that when Marve does throw it deep he is not throwing a catchable ball. I know people love to hate on the coaches, I dislike Bellefeuille as a coach too and I argued for him to be fired before Etchevary was fired, but come on, Marve hasn't done anything to make teams respect his arm. They bait him to throw deep and he buys it, they don't believe he can throw over the top accurately so they sit and wait for him to try and run and make him make a mistake by waiting for it. He's predictable and until he can open up the coverage by actually passing the ball well it's going to be more of the same. Yes, first series of the game, he was jacked up and over threw him no doubt. He's a rookie, those things happen, I'll wait to have more data than just one over throw to say the guy' can't pass or throw' as some seem to think. That's not the only deep ball he's thrown poorly just an obvious example that came to mind instantly. What about the one against Calgary he underthrew to I think Denmark when he was double covered? MAybe you were at the game but you know what Matt Dunigan said on that one? Said it was a terrible decision, the db was baiting him and he threw it anyway, lucky he wasn't picked off. If he looked to the other side of the field he had an option. Look I want Marve to do well but the guy isn't ready to play quarterback. Doesn't read the field quick enough and his arm might be strong but he hasn't connected on one deep attempt yet. That is basic stuff. Even if you can't read a defence you should be able to throw a deep ball to a place the receiver can catch it.

Doesn't address the two slugs we have on the D-line. What saying we need to improve the DL doesn't address that?

So you pass to them short and you're still in 2nd and long if the blocking isn't there. I don't know if you've noticed or not but our receivers aren't great at blocking downfield either. Other teams use screens and hitches much more effectively than we do and a big part of it is there's too often too many guys not being blocked by those downfield.

I'm not sure I totally agree with you about Walker being good in Hamilton. Guy is fast there's no doubt about that, but he's also a ***** who can't do anything if he doesn't have miles of space. There's a reason he wasn't protected in the expansion draft. Just not a football player. You got a track team then that's another story. Runningbacks are just such a dime a dozen position, why in gods name is Walters always signing retreads and wash outs?

This is what is puzzling because the Bombers have shown that when they involve their RB's heavily in the offense they win, at least have won this season. First Win 27 touches, 20/145 rushing 7/92 receiving Second Win 20 touches, 16/44 rushing 4/49 passing Third Win 17 touches. 15/59 rushing 2/27 passing What is happening though is that the number of touches have been steadily decreasing to the point of the backs being taken out of the game. If you can't get your RB involved on the ground and in the air then most times you will lose, like the Bombers have been. This team can run the ball and use the backs as effective receivers as we seen early on, they have just gone away from it more and more. Marcel needs to wake up and get back to what worked early in the year or he needs to be removed in favor of someone who can. Early in the season Willy was healthy and teams had to respect his arm. Now they don't worry about that and focus on stopping our run. Nope, Willys numbers started to dip when teams started blitzing because they knew he tends to hold onto the ball too long. Had we stuck with a heavy of running backs, they would have had to back off, just piss poor game calling by Marcel. Just like that huh? How about this: when the offense is clicking the runningbacks naturally get more touches, when the offence stagnates and bogs down they get less touches. This isn't rocket science. It's easy to give the backs lots of touches when you're leading or having success all around on offence, but when you're losing and your offence can't string first downs together they don't get that many opportunities. The OL is not consistent enough to just hand off all the time, that's a surefire way to find yourself in 2nd and long more than we already are.

There were those of us who said that a qb who can't pass from the pocket is the easiest thing in the world for CFL defences to defend and that's exactly what Calgary did. They played the entire thing saying to Marve "OK beat us with your arm" and you know what? It was a spectacular failure on the part of Marve. Yes he can run, yes he's exciting, but it's still the CFL, if as a quarterback you can't pass then what good are you? He needs to be better. If he could connect on some deep balls he'd have a much easier time because he'd be a hell of a lot harder to defend, but he's been brutal on the long throws. Like worse than Nealon Greene brutal and I used to mock that guy relentlessly for being unable to throw past 10 yards down field.

The OL was such a sore spot for the team in the early 2000s too, but rather than try and fill the interior entirely with NIs they would bring in buys like Ibisi and Bobo and it helped. Part of the problem with this offense is that the running game is inconsistent because the interior of the offensive line is inconsistent. Why not use the ratio flexibility we have by starting 3 NIs on defence to get a bulldozer of an american on the interior of the line?

The linebackers have really settled down as the year has gone on, but to me Wild is just the kind of player you make room for. Add Wild and improve the defensive line (outside of Westerman who is playing great) and then the D starts to look pretty solid.

This is pretty much exactly what I thought was happening. He looked like he'd panic and run directly into trouble. Sure he may have a suitable amount of time but was his receiver open? He's trying to make something happen at that stage in the game, throwing into the stands wasn't an option. Single coverage was further downfield - I'm sure guys like Denmark and Moore can get open one on one. Denmark has stunk this year, even said so himself in the paper and Moore, if he plays is going up against the defences best cover man, the rest of our receivers probably don't even belong on a professional field of play. Here's an example, against Toronto Marve had Denmark open deep and missed the throw by 10 yards. It's not that there's no options to throw it deep, it's that when Marve does throw it deep he is not throwing a catchable ball. I know people love to hate on the coaches, I dislike Bellefeuille as a coach too and I argued for him to be fired before Etchevary was fired, but come on, Marve hasn't done anything to make teams respect his arm. They bait him to throw deep and he buys it, they don't believe he can throw over the top accurately so they sit and wait for him to try and run and make him make a mistake by waiting for it. He's predictable and until he can open up the coverage by actually passing the ball well it's going to be more of the same.

Ugh. Gross. Do your ******* job Walters and find a guy who can play, there's only about a million runningbacks in the states looking for work.

Hey if you get offended being compared to Nasty Nate don't offend O'Shea comparing him to Burke. He is a way better coach than Burke could ever hope to be. I don't see the evidence that O'Shea is better than Burke. They were both good coordinators with bad head coaching records. Other than style, what's the difference? I don't see the players quitting on O'Shea. They gave up on Burke entirely. Yeah the team right now has a hard time rebounding from a couple poor plays, but it's different than a team that just packs it in entirely. I mean just looking at that Calgary game, the defense fought tooth and nail in the first half to try and give the offense all the chances they needed to win but the execution simply wasn't there on offence. With Burke the team visibly checked out about 5 minutes into a game. The team visibly folded after that interception for a TD early in the second half. The game was still in reach but after the following 2 and out, the defense allowed Calgary to march down the entire field. Then they did it again and again. The team quit...don't handle adversity well. See the 4 blowouts in 9 games already. Very Burkian-like If you can't see a difference between blow outs this year and with Burke then you are a scoreboard watcher only.

If they have a chance at Wild and pass because they signed Simmons I will be greatly displeased.....

You are also a negative nancy far too often.You are also not refuting my claim... Disagreeing with you is refuting enough.

I don't think they quit, I think they were just in over their heads. Hey if you get offended being compared to Nasty Nate don't offend O'Shea comparing him to Burke. He is a way better coach than Burke could ever hope to be. I don't see the evidence that O'Shea is better than Burke. They were both good coordinators with bad head coaching records. Other than style, what's the difference? I don't see the players quitting on O'Shea. They gave up on Burke entirely. Yeah the team right now has a hard time rebounding from a couple poor plays, but it's different than a team that just packs it in entirely. I mean just looking at that Calgary game, the defense fought tooth and nail in the first half to try and give the offense all the chances they needed to win but the execution simply wasn't there on offence. With Burke the team visibly checked out about 5 minutes into a game. 4 blow outs says otherwise Blow outs aren't the only story. Sometimes a blow out just happens because you're over matched. With Burke the team quit on him and as I said, I don't see the team quitting on O'Shea. I see them getting overwhelmed by negative plays and it takes them a while to recover, at which point the other team has generally opened up an insurmountable lead. This teams problem is it can't shake off poor plays quick enough and can't capitalize well enough on the big plays they do get. Let's look at this past game as an example. Calgary turns the ball over in the endzone, what do the Bombers do? They turn it right back over and Calgary immediately puts it in the endzone. Bombers block a punt and come away with only a field goal. Calgary gets an INT to start the 2nd half and it's in the endzone. See what I mean? Gotta be able to capitalize on the big plays and recover quickly when you make a bad play. Blowouts do tell you a lot about the team, and almost half the games this year have been blowout losses. Either the talent just isn't there, or the coaching is lacking. O'Shea may or may not have lost the locker room but the team is spiralling downward once more and the win/loss numbers do not lie. Don Matthews,Scotty Bowman, and many other coaches were not on their players' christmas card lists, but the teams won anyways. The same applies in the business world- it all comes down to results. I would suggest that given the differences between when we have Willy and when we don`t that it`s the lack of talent more than anything else. This team can not over come injuries anywhere. Is that the coach? No it's the talent.

You are also a negative nancy far too often.

I tried to explain to you how you needed to focus your complaints, but you just kept on with the scatter shot complain about everything mentality. That's why people are giving you grief. I explained why taking guys at non OL positions early isn't that bad IF you use the ratio flexibility properly and you should focus your complaining on that, but instead you kept on complaining about that, and the other thing, and something else. You really are a curmudgeon.

Marve offered hope after Brohm. Now we seem to know what he's about. Dominique Davis, next? So the Mike Kelly school of handling qbs? Leave a trail of broken qbs behind you and nothing in the system be rushing players hoping for a miracle? Outside of Ricky Ray quarterbacks take time to develop. You rush them in a bad situation you have destroyed whatever potential they might have. You think it's a coincidence that the teams that have been able to actually develop qbs have had a stable situation like Calgary with some former qbs/offensive gurus and veterans to bring along youngsters or Toronto with Ray as the established starter and Milanovich as a bit of a guru? Really who else has developed a qb? Sask with Durant and Willy who learned behind him.... Reilly developed behind Lulay... Hamilton didn't develop ****, they had to get a qb from Toronto, Montreal has tried a bunch of guys and they've all been found wanting. Edmonton has had a lot of guys go through and none of them have turned into much. Maybe Franklin is different, maybe he just had the good first game and will come back to reality? Remains to be seen. You know how you get a good quarterbacking situation? Stability from the GM to the coaches to the players. We have not had stability in GMs or coaches or players in an eternity. It's not that we bring in useless players, it's that they never get a chance to develop properly. They're always tossed into the deep end and expected to swim.

I don't think they quit, I think they were just in over their heads. Hey if you get offended being compared to Nasty Nate don't offend O'Shea comparing him to Burke. He is a way better coach than Burke could ever hope to be. I don't see the evidence that O'Shea is better than Burke. They were both good coordinators with bad head coaching records. Other than style, what's the difference? I don't see the players quitting on O'Shea. They gave up on Burke entirely. Yeah the team right now has a hard time rebounding from a couple poor plays, but it's different than a team that just packs it in entirely. I mean just looking at that Calgary game, the defense fought tooth and nail in the first half to try and give the offense all the chances they needed to win but the execution simply wasn't there on offence. With Burke the team visibly checked out about 5 minutes into a game. 4 blow outs says otherwise Blow outs aren't the only story. Sometimes a blow out just happens because you're over matched. With Burke the team quit on him and as I said, I don't see the team quitting on O'Shea. I see them getting overwhelmed by negative plays and it takes them a while to recover, at which point the other team has generally opened up an insurmountable lead. This teams problem is it can't shake off poor plays quick enough and can't capitalize well enough on the big plays they do get. Let's look at this past game as an example. Calgary turns the ball over in the endzone, what do the Bombers do? They turn it right back over and Calgary immediately puts it in the endzone. Bombers block a punt and come away with only a field goal. Calgary gets an INT to start the 2nd half and it's in the endzone. See what I mean? Gotta be able to capitalize on the big plays and recover quickly when you make a bad play.

Hey if you get offended being compared to Nasty Nate don't offend O'Shea comparing him to Burke. He is a way better coach than Burke could ever hope to be. I don't see the evidence that O'Shea is better than Burke. They were both good coordinators with bad head coaching records. Other than style, what's the difference? I don't see the players quitting on O'Shea. They gave up on Burke entirely. Yeah the team right now has a hard time rebounding from a couple poor plays, but it's different than a team that just packs it in entirely. I mean just looking at that Calgary game, the defense fought tooth and nail in the first half to try and give the offense all the chances they needed to win but the execution simply wasn't there on offence. With Burke the team visibly checked out about 5 minutes into a game. I agree the players haven't given up on O'Shea yet, he is much more of a leader than Tim B. however I do have many issues with O'Shea's style I think he is too easy on the players in practice and he gives then too much "rest" IMO , Cal Murphy wasn't too working about keeping his players fresh he wanted them to work in practice and lots of them... I think for a team that has gone 4-14 over its past 18 games ( and only 3 without Willy ) we are not a very good team and its not from a lack of talent IMO its poor coaching especially our OC , ST and OL Coaches... Coaching has changed and evolved since Cal Murphy was coaching. The task master doesn't work anymore.

What I want to know is where all the Rah Rah Marve types have gone and whether they want to apologize for arguing with me when I tried to say calm down and that Marve needed to show he could pass from the pocket or he'd be easy to defend. Lo and behold teams are making him play from the pocket and begging him to throw up risky balls. He needs to be able to hit some deep throws to loosen things up, so far his deep attempts have been to be frank, awful.

Considering that we signed Sam Hurl to a big contract & have Bass & Randle as well on the outside I don't see Waggoner starting at MLB as some have suggested for a long time, if ever. He's a depth player for us right now. That's all he may ever be. As far as some saying here they trust Walters with this pick, what has he done the past 2 seasons to earn that trust? He's 9-18 career as a GM with the Bombers. There's nothing saying that Waggoner has to be a MLB. But, if he won the spot over Hurl, then I would call that upgrading our Canadian talent, which is a good thing, right? Again, you keep going on about the O line and how we're going to miss out on talent but you don't say who that talent actually is. Sounds to me like you're complaining for the sake of complaining. You don't like Walters, fine. I'm not sold on him either, but I think that Waggoner was a smart call. Is it guaranteed to work out? Of course not. But no pick ever is. ISO? nooooooo never..... half the time I don't think he even cares what it is as long as he's complaining about somethng.

I think you can pretty safely write this season off. The separation you mention is happening and it's leaving us clearly behind everyone else. Our offence has shown a fundamental lack of anything without Drew at the helm. What separation though? Still the same number of wins as BC and they have problems of their own, more wins than the riders, one less than Montreal, 2 less then Ottawa.... Sure Calgary and Edmonton and Hamilton and Toronto are pulling ahead but so what? We're talking about taking the 3rd playoff spot in the west here and they're only 1 win back of that right now and could find themselves sitting in that position if they take advantage of the Riders. BC is a bit of a gong show too, but they've played one less game, and Harris can drag the rest of them to a couple more wins. We're ahead of the Riders for now, but in their losses they've looked a hell of a lot more impressive than we have of late (their last game notwithstanding). Everyone in the East is ahead of us and I don't see our ability to overtake any of them. We need to finish ahead of three teams to make the play offs. We are only ahead of the Riders and our offence right now is unable to win us a game. I personally see us falling further back behind at least the six play off teams. We are tied with BC in wins and hold the tie breaker, I take issue with your assessment that we are only ahead of one team. You are dismissing the trouble the Lions have and over estimating the RIders. We lost to Toronto by 1 score the week before this, too much emphasis based on a blowout to what is probably the best team in the league. Our defence looked good until the back breaking pick 6 to start the 2nd half. Let's not completely write off what the Bombers have here. They are 1 win out of a playoff spot. Hardly time to be tossing the season out the window. Be an optimist prime not a negatron.

Hey if you get offended being compared to Nasty Nate don't offend O'Shea comparing him to Burke. He is a way better coach than Burke could ever hope to be. I don't see the evidence that O'Shea is better than Burke. They were both good coordinators with bad head coaching records. Other than style, what's the difference? I don't see the players quitting on O'Shea. They gave up on Burke entirely. Yeah the team right now has a hard time rebounding from a couple poor plays, but it's different than a team that just packs it in entirely. I mean just looking at that Calgary game, the defense fought tooth and nail in the first half to try and give the offense all the chances they needed to win but the execution simply wasn't there on offence. With Burke the team visibly checked out about 5 minutes into a game.