Mr Dee

Should be benched. Wild man.

Where are all the superlatives for Washington when he makes plays all over the field? One of the reasons teams do try to run on us is because the pass defence, led by guys like Randle, Leggett and Washington, are doing a fine job. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

In slo-mo he was early but not in real time? ? ? So then, he should have thrown the flag in slo-mo. As I said earlier, the defender could have been called for shielding as it is highly debatable whether he looked back at the ball when he threw his hands up. That's what I said could not be overturned on replay because it was undeterminable IMO. Your branding one way or another doesn't change it. Just say they got away with one.

You do know that he can be in front of the receiver and still impede his progress to the ball - right? If you use your own eyes, you'll see early contact, preventing Kelly from using his hands to catch the ball. That bump was enough to disrupt Kelly and should have been called. If you can't see early contact, then perhaps you should talk to Jodie Foster for some tips.

I want their their names. I was one of them in the chat that said that I wanted to see Brohm come in, but in fairness I was saying that only because I didn't want Drew to get even more injured by hobbling around on one leg out there (and miss any chance that he might be able to play in the Banjo Bowl) and it was 21-7 at the time and appeared the game was going in the toilet. Of course, many of us just can't forget the many folds by this team in previous years, so the concept of a strong comeback and almost winning the game were not apparent to us. Some of us are still pretty emotionally fragile, so forgive us ok? Also - how the hell did Willy's ankle bend like that, and he was still able to play? Matt Nichols needs to take some notes. His foot would be pointing backwards at that point. Admittedly, that was not a good moment. It really was remarkable to see him return after watching the sideline activities. But, ho hum, another nick or hanging digit, no problem, a little shake, tape and let her roll. Here's another blurb to add to his stretcher comment: “The guys were all coming up to me on the sideline, saying ‘Stick in there’ and ‘We need you out there,’” said Willy. “I never want to let any of my teammates down. They mean so much to me. I just really wish I could’ve done more to get the win for those guys because they play so hard. We did a lot of good things out there, but I’m sure we’ll look at the film and there’s going to be mistakes and we need to correct them, because we have this team next week as well.” ​And just like that…Winnipeg has a new sports hero.

After watching that thrilling game yesterday, this one was definitely on a level with…well with the play by play calling of this game…sub-par. My only regret for this game game was that the Ti-Cats won spoiling my chances of seeing Austin fling his headset aside. (not that would ever happen)

I'm no kid for sure, but O'Shea has a lot of credit with me. Count me in with those who don't like the way you disparaged our Head Coach with that title for this thread. You may have disagreed with the call but don't pretend yours is the only opinion, or that yours is the more correct.

There is absolutely no doubt that the defender got there early. What's debatable is whether he turned his head to locate the ball. The review cannot judge whether his head was turned but clearly contact was made early. O'Shea was right and the review was wrong making these reviews inconsistent and therefore unreliable.

Look for two POTW awards to be taken up up by Joey!

I don't see the same doomsday scenario as you do for next weekend and as much as our deficiencies have been exposed, I think we have done a good job of exposing other team's weaknesses. Didn't we just take that game to the very end against a very good team?

I want their their names.

I don't understand how you can say a receiver gave up on a ball. That would imply that the ball was catchable and the effort wasn't there. I would disagree. Those three long ball throws were ever so close to being game changers, so I don't mind the aggressive play calls. We were playing to win. Coaches get criticized all the time for doing this and not doing that, so I can understand disagreeing with the play calls, but as I said, saying the effort wasn't there, is just wrong.

He made it up it was one of many things that cost us. Giving up 2 singles cost us (one intentional one because of a poor snap) taking penalties cost us, a busted coverage cost us, a few narrow misses on catches cost us. Trying to pick out one thing is a fools errand. Far be it for me to suggest that was the turning point of the game and I should have stipulated it was one of the reasons, in the second quarter, where because of these failings, we struggled in field position. I was only talking about the second quarter and the field position that stopped our momentum. Yes, Stoudermire did make it up, and will be a force going forward, but it was a mistake and it did cost us.

Discussion of a Coach's decision is fine and invites ideas, both offhand and bang on, but seriously, the heading of this thread is not accurate, and should , at least, have a question mark.

Why assume the Riders didn't make adjustments after the first TD drive? Further to that, we stopped going to those short passes that were successful early because of our absolute lousy field position through the second quarter. I love the new guy Stoudermire, but that one mistake of catching the ball deep, instead of letting Sask. get a single, cost us big time.

They got a couple good calls, a few good runs and were rewarded with a TD. I'm certain, if the rolls were reversed, that we would have had a couple good calls, a nice mix of pass and run, and we would have been rewarded with a TD. That's how close this game was.

You guys that are in hysterics have to calm down and realize that was one of the best games of the year in the CFL where two teams fought hard and in the end it came down to whomever had the ball last. Officials be damned, gambles be damned, if we had more time we would have marched down the field and scored too. Both teams exposed weaknesses, so how come we're the only ones who have bad players? Does anybody now believe that we can't go into a playoff situation against this team and win? I saw a damned good effort out there and the Roughriders knew they were in a game today.

If we execute our defensive game plan as well as we did vs. Montreal, then we'll be right in the thick of the game. STs and field position and a few good plays by our Offence and we're good. This can be done. Go Big Blue (and Gold)

dele

Only wish him the best but also wish O'Shea would have had a glimpse of a real MLB.

In this case I would agree, 19 tackles, in the games he has played, is a really bad stat. Always seems a little bit late arriving at the scene…hmm.

Not really. We gave up about 2 yards a carry without Kuale last week, even with Montreal trying to establish the run to help their QB's early. They ran at will vs Ottawa last night. Pretty clear who/what is getting picked on by opposing teams. Of course that be attributed to other corrections as well, but I'm not going to do a blocking job for Kuale because frankly, I'm not a fan. I'm still saying it's selective stats because they're after the fact, before corrections were made, and don't allow for proper game planning. But I do agree teams will target areas, as well as players.

I'm all for corralling Kuale, installing Sears and Kromah, but man those are selective statistics.

I like the idea of being aggressive and dictating how the game will be played. Instead of guessing where Chick is going to be lining up, I'd rather they'd be guessing on what to do when seeing our different packages.