17to85

but it makes sense. IF there's a qb coming up to FA that you think can be your starter you can think you'll get him and then get some rookie prospects anywhere and take other roster players rather than having teams protect more. Yeah if a guy like Ray is left unprotected they'd jump on him, but I don't see them getting all hot and bothered for the backups around the league.

small correction, Ritchie was hired before Bauer, which is why Bauer was so quick to fire him when things started slipping. He wasn't Bauers guy and there was a clash there. Ritchie wanted to be the guy in charge and so did Bauer. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

well you wouldn't have seen much in the 2nd half because most of the second half involved watching cornish run for like 6 or 8 yards every time he got the ball.

hefney started playing and was benched when they realized he couldn't cover properly anymore so in that case yeah no loss cutting him. His skills have diminished so might as well move on, especially if you have concerns about his attitude. Hefney was really cut so that washington could replace him which is an upgrade, washington has been good this year and they were high on markett as a rookie so if you like the rookie might as well move on.

well Hefney I am not concerned about, he isn't able to play for the team he's on now. I'd have kept Logan as a backup for sure though, better than Dan ******* West that's for sure.

so stop the run game! the amount of tackles they missed on Cornish alone would have gone a long way to actually getting the offense back onto the field. You're either being deliberately argumentative here or you're an idiot, which is it?

2nd touchdown for a good example, stamps D all seemed convinced that Simpson was getting the ball. Hell the first play of the game was play action right? There was plenty of play action and it was very effective.

but they DID string together some drives that could have ended in points! Yeah they weren't touchdown drives, but they moved the ball when they had it. You can't win with a defense that gives up massive time consuming drives like that every time they get onto the field, likewise you can't expect an offense to score touchdowns every time they get the ball either. The score in this game was closer than it should have been based on how the defense played and anyone who is focussing on the offense not doing it's job really doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. The offense scored some points and moved the ball despite the defense turning in a Daley-like performance. It's one thing to let RIcky Ray pick you apart, but this was a 23 year old qb making his first ever start!

Honestly all the talk about firing people is way too premature. GMs midseason is absolutely useless, firing head coaches midseason is just as bad. You want to clean house wait until the offseason that's the time to do it.

There were a few things I didn't care for. I didn't like how in the first quarter they were so quick to throw deep, think a smarter play was what the stamps did, work the short passes first and then go downfield but that's a minor thing, if the passes were on target no one is talking about that. The big concern is the D, and it's not just that they were getting beaten, it's that they were allowing long time consuming drives that kept the offense (which did show signs of life and being able to move the ball and score) on the sidelines not able to do anything. Would have been a lot better for the D to just give up a couple big plays here and there rather than constantly giving up the 5 or 6 or 7 yards per play that they were.

see for me it's not about how many a guy catches, it's how many he drops. Catches are the expected result when the ball comes to you, you put them on the ground that's a big negative strike. We see receivers all over the league get rocked and hang on, if you can't do than you're not doing your job. The occasional drop is something you can live with, but when you put multiple balls on the turf you failed at your #1 job. To me Anderson had a very very average game at best. Nothing that a different receivers couldn't have done so in that case why are we using him?

here's another thing that puzzles me.... Burke raves about Cauchy Muambas understanding of the game but I just don't see it. what am I missing? Seems to me that the mental aspect is the weakest part of his game and he makes a lot of errors in judgement out there.

but the point is that this game was more circumstantial than the problems in the last 2 games which were largely a yeah they sucked situation. Not taking the field goal try and then running out of time in the quarter cause you're still on your drive is not the same as going 2 and out every time you get the ball in the 3rd. The problems last night weren't that the offense couldn't get anything going, it was the the defense couldn't get a stop and put the offense back on the field.

you know little people hate it when you bring up LMS. They swear up and down it doesn't exist despite every single one of them having a deep seeded jealousy of tall folks.

even if Goltz wasn't running and Simpson wasn't getting the ball a lot you could obviously see that the stamps D was worried about both of those things. There is no way they can't give Goltz another chance next week. Seeing what he was able to do should in theory allow them to make more consistent decisions with the offense and make it more effective. There was no time this year that I was as confident that the offense could do something than last night.

I'm suggesting that the qb position is such an issue that it's hard to properly judge the rest of the team. The good news however is that Goltz actually showed a hell of a lot of good things for a first start so he might wind up being a good enough option. For a guy in his first start he made pretty good decisions and showed he's got the arm to make some tough throws. Stick with him we might solve our own problem. Which unfortunately doesn't mean a lot when the defense has completely imploded.

I am just a big fan of the way Dickenson runs an offence. That guy was always a smart qb and that hasn't changed as an OC, he just knows how to make a defence look lost.

I agree, I asked during the game what Burkes infatuation with Anderson is cause I just don't see it. He's like Denmark but without as good hands.... Yet Denmark is in the doghouse for whatever reason and Anderson plays without fail despite not ever really doing a lot to really earn his place.

The play where Goltz threw an INT, the throw was rushed because of the pressure in the qbs face... that pressure came because Boatman was less useful than a pylon on that play. I'd be switching him and Morley out for whatever other american tackle we have around here and Swiston. That's the side of the line that seems to have the most problems so time to make changes there.

but that's the problem! the qb doesn't need time the receivers are that open! I mean just look at that first big play the stamps made, that receiver was never covered by anyone. Both of the tds the receivers were never covered either, the dbs were beaten clean the whole way. The zone they were playing gave all kinds of underneath room and then they missed tackles coming up to make the stop. There was no blanketing going on, just a hell of a lot of sloppy and downright blown coverages backed up with horrendous tackling.

yes Mack was fooled. Some fans loved the hire some hated it because they remembered running Lapo out of town years earlier when his offense with Khari Jones, Milt Stegall, Charles Roberts etc etc was really unimaginative and the only reason it worked was because Roberts and Sellers and Jones and Stegall could make plays with anything. Once we had Stegall and Roberts hurt the offense disappeared.

no one seems to listen... The Ottawa GM has flat out said that if they are taking a qb in the expansion draft it's going to be someone who is a sure thing otherwise they'd rather not give teams the chance to protect more of their roster players. They seem to think there's a qb who will be a FA they can pick up to be their starter and they've flat out said that's the route they want to explore first and foremost.

that's a little bit unfair last game. The stamps started off the 3rd quarter with a long scoring drive... then the bombers actually moved into field goal range but opted to go for a 3rd and 2 gamble rather than kick the field goal. Then the stamps went on another long scoring drive eating up a ton of time. Unless I'm forgetting something the Bombers next drive in the 3rd quarter had them again in field goal range when the 3rd quarter ended. DId they actually have more than those 2 drives in the 3rd quarter? Both of them made it into scoring territory so it's not nearly as bad last night as that "3 games without a 3rd quarter point" might indicate. If the offense had got more chances with the ball in the 3rd quarter I doubt we're even having this discussion, but the TOP was just so lopsided at that point because the defense couldn't stop anything even with the offense able to move the ball a bit.

anderson dropped a few passes tonight. I thought Edwards was OK except for a few where he did his giving up to try and draw the PI thing. Denmark didn't stand out much but I think a lot of that was the success of Kohlert and Etienne and to an extent Edwards. Just not enough passes thrown to get every receiver big numbers.

it's not the lack of blitzing, it's the lack of coverage. Even Burke says that much. he says they aren't playing man well enough to play man so they switch to zone and when they play zone they don't do any better.