17to85

one leads to the other. When the offense can't stay on the field and put some points up you leave the defense in the position where they get worn down being on the field too much and momentum just builds and builds and builds against you. Any team that has an offense playing that badly is going to look poor on D because they just get worn down.

when bad Glenn shows up it's a long day for your team no doubt about it.

should you not build a base by taking the most talent and then building around them? If for example this team uses 3 NIs at receiver then we can play 3 americans on the OL quite easily. This idea that you MUST have 4 or 5 canadians on the OL is outdated thinking and needs to end.

you know I think I'd be more worried about Rider win today if they had lost the last game against Edmonton. It serves as a good wake up call to the esks that they can't take them lightly. Unless you're the Bombers it's not likely to lose back to back games to the same team. I'd heavily favour BC in the east except for the fact that crossover teams don't often seem to win.

well there's no Peaches playing on that defensive line either... seriously the CFL isn't complicated. good DL play = good defense, poor DL play = bad defense. Swap DLs with Edmonton and Winnipeg I guarantee that Chris Jones D isn't so fearsome.

Take the best player. The "we need an OL too badly" would have landed the team Mitchell instead of Muamba a few years ago and how would that have worked out? If the receiver is the best guy available take him! With Watson not being all that durable a more explosive NI receiver would be a good option for this team to be developing.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?Don't forget, sears, sherman, washington, kuale, newman, johnson, fraser....all players who missed some time if not the entire season. I think there may be a couple more but I can't remember.I think the debate on Etch is was the failure of the D in the second half of the season due to 1) rest of the league figured out his schemes or 2) injuries.In my opinion it's more a systemic problem with the schemes. option 3: offense couldn't stay on the field and the defence predictably gave up more yards as a result. Excuses. Like I said earlier, all teams deal with injuries. You can only use that crutch for so long. You think MOS used injuries as an excuse when they lost? I never heard any of that. Just that they have to play better. So, if the players don't get off easy then why should any of the coaches? Dude read the whole chain of comments, guy I was quoting talked about injuries being an excuse for the offense and asked for excuses from the defense, I gave him some injury excuses for the D too. Seriously you have hated the Etch hire since day 1, you are very very biased on this subject. I didn't want him hired either and he's not my ideal defensive coordinator either but come on, at least acknowledge that the defense did a decent job this year, especially considering how weak the defensive line was. I don't know a single defense that does any better than our did when it lacks talent on the defensive line. If you turn around and try and blame Etch for the DL being bad I'm going to die of laughter by the way.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?Don't forget, sears, sherman, washington, kuale, newman, johnson, fraser....all players who missed some time if not the entire season. I think there may be a couple more but I can't remember.I think the debate on Etch is was the failure of the D in the second half of the season due to 1) rest of the league figured out his schemes or 2) injuries.In my opinion it's more a systemic problem with the schemes. option 3: offense couldn't stay on the field and the defence predictably gave up more yards as a result.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?

Haha Gary Lawless is a *****. Why? And your reasons can't involve "fat" or "bald". Because the offense was a far bigger reason for the wins falling off.... and special teams giving up as many return tds as they did were more of a problem than the defense as well. I have pointed out in other thread there were maybe only 3 games where the defense didn't give the team a chance to win. stating that the defense was likely the biggest reason for the wins going away = straight up ********.

Haha Gary Lawless is a *****.

yeah the TFSA is a great savings tool. I hate that banks are always trying to push people into just using it as a savings account, such a waste, the true potential of a TFSA is to invest in something long term with good growth potential. Better than an RRSP for savings, everyone should be taking advantage of it.

which is of course the reason you were at the 2009 Grey Cup in Calgary right?

and with the riders being eliminated this weekend it's perfect because no one can call them on their bullshit this time. "Oh yeah he totally would have played if we could have won this week"

No this isn't what it is at all, this is Mike and I and some others trying to explain that the defense wasn't as bad as some of you want to pretend it was. Stay or go with Etch I don't care, I'll trust O'Shea to make the choice he wants. If Etch is back though (which he probably will be) it's not the disaster that some of you want to pretend it is because the defense for all it's unconventionality was not really a problem this season. Now you're doing it Dave. The defense got worse as the season went on, it became susceptible to the pass because the secondary was being asked to stop the run, it was giving up big plays on the ground and now through the air, it was swiss cheese for any team, even the vaunted offense of the ORB's. But it really wasn't a problem. No it wasn't a problem. The offense was the biggest problem in the back half of the year, except as I mentioned those couple of games. Redblacks and Eskimos being a couple of them. But a big part of those losses was also the offenses inability to do anything. The last 2 BC games any kind of offensive production they can win. Against Hamilton the D kept them in that game and all the offense had to do was score that damned TD late. Defense kept them in the games against the stamps for the most part. A lot of you are trying to make believe pretty hard that the defense was a problem because it fits your preconceived notions about Etchevary. Offense was down right across the league, defense was winning games for virtually everyone. Could our offense have been better, absolutely, and if they were we probably do win more games but that's not what happened. What happened was games became defensive battles and when push came to shove, we got it shoved down our throat. Except the defense didn't really drop off much as the year went on, the only thing that dropped off for the Bombers was the offense. That is the difference. They kept going 2 and out and the defense kept getting left on the field, that breaks any defense.

but but but Flutie had the same injury and came back! I was assured that Taman had no reason to lie! what gives? I almost wish the rider ******* were here to swallow their crow... almost.

No this isn't what it is at all, this is Mike and I and some others trying to explain that the defense wasn't as bad as some of you want to pretend it was. Stay or go with Etch I don't care, I'll trust O'Shea to make the choice he wants. If Etch is back though (which he probably will be) it's not the disaster that some of you want to pretend it is because the defense for all it's unconventionality was not really a problem this season. Now you're doing it Dave. The defense got worse as the season went on, it became susceptible to the pass because the secondary was being asked to stop the run, it was giving up big plays on the ground and now through the air, it was swiss cheese for any team, even the vaunted offense of the ORB's. But it really wasn't a problem. No it wasn't a problem. The offense was the biggest problem in the back half of the year, except as I mentioned those couple of games. Redblacks and Eskimos being a couple of them. But a big part of those losses was also the offenses inability to do anything. The last 2 BC games any kind of offensive production they can win. Against Hamilton the D kept them in that game and all the offense had to do was score that damned TD late. Defense kept them in the games against the stamps for the most part. A lot of you are trying to make believe pretty hard that the defense was a problem because it fits your preconceived notions about Etchevary.

And yet, Dave -- of ALL PEOPLE -- has been able to come around on the idea of it. He was one of the most vocal about not wanting Etch here in the first place, but was able to see that the defense really wasn't the problem this year. If Dave can change his mind about something, anyone can.....even curmudgeonly old Iso Al.... That's because I am an open minded individual who bases his opinions on evidence and logic. It's why the people who disagree with me are wrong.

No this isn't what it is at all, this is Mike and I and some others trying to explain that the defense wasn't as bad as some of you want to pretend it was. Stay or go with Etch I don't care, I'll trust O'Shea to make the choice he wants. If Etch is back though (which he probably will be) it's not the disaster that some of you want to pretend it is because the defense for all it's unconventionality was not really a problem this season.

We win 2 of 3 vs the Riders with another competent DC. A few other games that I can't remember now where we couldn't close the win because we couldn't stop the run. Now you're just flat out lying. The defense kept the Riders from scoring much at all in the first game we played them, it was the turnovers by the offense that sunk the Bombers in that game. Labour is one I will grant. The D needed a stop on that last drive and failed to get one, but the banjo bowl again wasn't the Ds fault. They gave the offense the ball back multiple times in the final few minutes and again the offence failed to capitalize. So I will ask again, how many games did the D not give the team a chance to win? Labour I put on the, loss to Ottawa and in Edmonton I would also say they didn't give the team a chance to win... but 3 games out of 18 that's not nearly so bad as some of you like to say.

So which games do you feel the defense didn't give the team a chance to win this year?

So let's see... qb that played poorly, receivers that had a bad case of the dropsies, using chevon walker most of the year at rb and they fire the coach cause the offense wasn't good enough? Can't fire the GM first I guess, so the OC makes a good sacrificial lamb.

The problem with calling it a tax break is that every tax break is a tax break for the rich because poor people don't pay much in taxes! Any time you lessen the tax load it always benefits people with more money more than people with no money. The problem the left has it that they love to spend other people money. "Oh just tax the wealthy or businesses" they say. The important part is that someone other than they themselves pay for it.

I want to win Noeller. We won't ever with him as DC. I think that's more important than keeping him around for anyone's amusement. and yet we could have easily had a winning season with him as DC if not for bad turnovers on offense, some break downs on special teams... That's why people keep arguing with you about this, the defense was actually pretty solid for the most part this season. The offense doesn't go MIA late in the year and a winning season and playoffs quite likely happen.

damned shame the season is over for them and they can't give a giant **** you in the post season. Damned shame.