Mr Dee

Good point. It’s not as if we haven’t been saying “Grey’s going to be here this year, I hope” anyways..

Well, that’s better Milt.. “I want to apologize to Matt Nichols. Nowhere in his interview did he outright say that he was throwing his receivers under the bus. So I don’t want to put words in his mouth, so I want to apologize for that.” - Milt Stegall

Hey, when the offence doesn’t stay on the field...what does that leave?

Wrong. Go to page 8 Matt Nichols boo thread..read the transcript. Maybe you and burg can discuss..

Ok then, what did he say..exactly?

You’re bringing up a dead issue. As they say - “drop it.”

It’s painfully obvious that we need “that” receiver to give us more room to maneuver. I’m disappointed that they do not at least look at Washington in this regard. But then again, what makes me believe LaPo will use his weapons effectively? Last game, at the beginning, they targeted different receivers and it resembled an offence. We used more receivers than Calgary. (Of course they didn’t need to) but my point is, with our offence, you have to take the pressure off Harris so he can do his thing. They just aren’t incorporating their weapons to do this. Only 7 touches for Harris is ridiculous. Where LaPo’s mind go when we have to move the ball?

Whenever I’ve heard O’Shea talk reviewing game film, it’s always “we”. The same thing applies to planning for the next game. O’Shea doesn’t just put stamp approval on game plans until he, and the co-ordinates, review what they think is a plan to win that game against whichever opponent. He as much said it again on the last Coaches’ show that they will evaluate to see if changes are warranted. LaPo, Hall and O’Shea, are all responsible for the game plan and who the QB will be. I don’t believe, at this stage, that they are talking giving Streveler more time other than in the packages they’ve already shown us. They love Nichol’s preparation and still think he’s their best option. He just maintains he thinks “how do you win the game.” O’Shea says he doesn’t believe he’s being being stubborn in this regard. The same for Flanders..”he’s a very good football player behind a very good football player.”

Well, I wish they would send him some notes so he, can figure himself out..

Once again, here’s the transcript (from Ed Tait) of what Nichols actually said as opposed to what people are saying he said: Irving: “Their defence is the best in the league statistically. What did they do today, Matt? Did they do anything that you weren’t expecting?” Nichols: “No. Nothing we weren’t expecting. They just do their jobs very well. When they’re in zone and I’m going through four and five reads and finding no one open, they’re doing a good job. There were times where I felt like we were moving the ball well against them, we hit some stuff. We just kept kind of stalling out, were just a little short and we didn’t do a good enough job of getting some chunk plays as an offence which, in my opinion, is not an offence in the CFL. If you don’t have two or three of those in a game that flip the field, you don’t have a good chance of winning. We just need to find a way to make some of those bigger plays. It felt like we were right there all game, we just didn’t quite make that one play to change the game.”

👁‍🗨Good Bomber 1st half. Much less predictable play calling..spreading the ball around..leaving Streveler in to make a play. Played on par with the mighty Stamps. Actually led the game for over 37 minutes. Then.. Then the collapse. I agree with many, too predictable. With all the knowledge that LaPolice possesses you’d think he could mix plays a lot better. 👁‍🗨The abandoning of our high tempo game does not suit us. Nichols plays that well. From Ed Tait: But their next seven possessions featured an interception and six consecutive punts. That ineffective chunk featured 29 plays totalling just 70 yards. Calgary matched that by putting up 16 points on their ensuing possessions, which included 39 plays covering 246 yards.

That would be marvellous..and I’m sure Leggett would excel..

I do disagree. There have been catches made that have been as unreasonable as that. Don’t get me wrong, that wasn’t a catch made on easy street, but still catchable IMO. It would have been exceptional, but like I said before, exceptional is what you need from your top receiver.. And nobody said it was a brutal drop..

Moe Leggett’s worst game as a Bomber. And he knows it..

No one is disputing the ball was under thrown at the worst possible time. Yes, there were two defenders closing, but Adams knew the ball was coming and even though it got through somehow, he got his hands on it. He’s got to squeeze it. But don’t try to push aside the fact that many receivers are put in that position on jump balls and well-positioned defenders..and they make the catch. That’s what I’m talking about.

Unfortunately, I believe the Rider players are more passionate and excited than the “look-at-tape-then-flush” Bomber players who can’t overcome poor execution..after 10 games.. Lots of questions will be answered this weekend..

That’s my take on it also. Fans have seen catches, much harder than that, being made by receivers in this league. We need our best, to be the best, at least on our team. Nothing against Adams, but damn, that catch could have changed the game..

I heard the interview. I agree with Bob..

No, to Ernest Jackson. Not impressed with him this year..

Just listened to Matt’s post game interview and he did not throw his receivers under the bus. He was giving Calgary’s D credit for playing so well in zone coverage even through 4-5 reads.

BC “dropping” out of this game. Ricky Collins leading the dropsy crowd.

Yeah, I did have the plays mixed up. Thinking of the 1st interception he made. I mean how many ints can a DE make in one game?

I’m not going to defend Nichols on that pick in any way, but that was a great defensive play to reach out, stop the ball, catch it and score. Sometimes the D makes the play. We needed something like that..