blitzmore

THIS JUST IN: The @REDBLACKS have parted ways with offensive coordinator Mike Gibson. Details to come. #CFL

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. So second last in sacks and last in run stopping constitutes a solid defence for the most part of the season? That's laughable actually. It also fails to talk about the effect on the offence, especially in fourth quarters many times so the offence could not get back on the field. In general football theory, sure, that's a problem. In real-life Bomber games? The first Rider game where many fans were losing their minds over Messam running for 10 yards on every carry. Total points generated by Saskatchewan's offence that game? 6. And us not being able to mount a comeback because we didn't have the ball? The defence got the offence the ball twice inside the 3 minute warning that game. And the offence gave us 2 turnovers. It's a flawed defence, no doubt. By design it gives up the run to take away the pass. I'm not in love with it. But the whipping it takes from people I'd consider knowledgeable football fans on here (some obvious exceptions), well it makes me wonder whether breaking down all 18 games after the fact is an exercise I should make time for. Because the games I watched, more often than not the defence was giving us a chance to win, not costing us the game. Well the one game example is not enough for me. You admit it is flawed, but you still want him back when we could likely find someone better? I guess the fact he has not been employed in the CFL for quite some time should tell us something.

Pav's looked like he was glued to the ice on the 2nd goal, or slow as molasses in January, take your pick.

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. So second last in sacks and last in run stopping constitutes a solid defence for the most part of the season? That's laughable actually. It also fails to talk about the effect on the offence, especially in fourth quarters many times so the offence could not get back on the field.

and Dr. CFL said the Jets are really an AHL team

What? He ran through some big holes, and got tackled by the first guy who touched him as usual.

It would appear that Dr. CFL's credentials if any, only applies to football...definitely not to hockey

Bringing back Section S is fine. Making any sort of announcement about juvenile bahaviour changes the story to that specific thing and endorses said behaviour. A wiser course of action would have been to simply say they want Section S to be as fun and engaged as it used to be and will not be looking to enforce rules abour harmless behaviour if its just people having a good time. The problem now is, the "beer snake" is now a "thing" and will dominate a lot of coverage at the beginning of next season. If anyone gets hurt or causes a fight as a result, Wade will have to then rescind the policy change. Its just silly. I find it kind of embarrassing. Oh yeah good idea...announce that they are not going to enforce rules for harmless behaviour...great idea....not Missed the point. The point is that saying something that general leaves people wondering "so what is the harmless behaviour that they are not going to enforce?" Theyd find out pretty quick, no? ok you think so? and that is a good way for them to find out? Here is the press release...The Winnipeg Blue Bombers Football Club is pleased to announce that we will NOT be enforcing rules for harmless behavior....if you want to know what those are....wait and see!. Yes in your mind I guess that is the way for them to find out. Not too hard to see you have never made up any rules and figured out a way to enforce them or not. Use your head, use some common sense, use a little logic and maybe stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. Obviously I didnt mean they should word it that way. There's a way to say hey we want our fans to have fun at our games and we arent going to be nazi's about it. Quite frankly, I wouldnt say anything. I'd handle it internally and move on. Then when some yahoos start a beer snake, they will notice security doesnt puff out their chests. Seems to me you are the one without logic. You didn't like the way they handled the snake announcement, then you say they should announce that they are not going to enforce rules for harmless behavior, I try to show you that you can't say things that way because it means nothing, then you say you don't get the point, but you don't offer your own version of a proper press release, then you say you wouldn't say anything which totally defeats what they are trying to accomplish with the announcement, and now you get downright nasty. Have a nice day!

Bringing back Section S is fine. Making any sort of announcement about juvenile bahaviour changes the story to that specific thing and endorses said behaviour. A wiser course of action would have been to simply say they want Section S to be as fun and engaged as it used to be and will not be looking to enforce rules abour harmless behaviour if its just people having a good time. The problem now is, the "beer snake" is now a "thing" and will dominate a lot of coverage at the beginning of next season. If anyone gets hurt or causes a fight as a result, Wade will have to then rescind the policy change. Its just silly. I find it kind of embarrassing. Oh yeah good idea...announce that they are not going to enforce rules for harmless behaviour...great idea....not Missed the point. The point is that saying something that general leaves people wondering "so what is the harmless behaviour that they are not going to enforce?" Theyd find out pretty quick, no? ok you think so? and that is a good way for them to find out? Here is the press release...The Winnipeg Blue Bombers Football Club is pleased to announce that we will NOT be enforcing rules for harmless behavior....if you want to know what those are....wait and see!. Yes in your mind I guess that is the way for them to find out. Not too hard to see you have never made up any rules and figured out a way to enforce them or not.

Bringing back Section S is fine. Making any sort of announcement about juvenile bahaviour changes the story to that specific thing and endorses said behaviour. A wiser course of action would have been to simply say they want Section S to be as fun and engaged as it used to be and will not be looking to enforce rules abour harmless behaviour if its just people having a good time. The problem now is, the "beer snake" is now a "thing" and will dominate a lot of coverage at the beginning of next season. If anyone gets hurt or causes a fight as a result, Wade will have to then rescind the policy change. Its just silly. I find it kind of embarrassing. Oh yeah good idea...announce that they are not going to enforce rules for harmless behaviour...great idea....not Missed the point. The point is that saying something that general leaves people wondering "so what is the harmless behaviour that they are not going to enforce?"

Bringing back Section S is fine. Making any sort of announcement about juvenile bahaviour changes the story to that specific thing and endorses said behaviour. A wiser course of action would have been to simply say they want Section S to be as fun and engaged as it used to be and will not be looking to enforce rules abour harmless behaviour if its just people having a good time. The problem now is, the "beer snake" is now a "thing" and will dominate a lot of coverage at the beginning of next season. If anyone gets hurt or causes a fight as a result, Wade will have to then rescind the policy change. Its just silly. I find it kind of embarrassing. Oh yeah good idea...announce that they are not going to enforce rules for harmless behaviour...great idea....not

So you really believe Miller is not committed to putting a better team on the field? It would appear not quite as much as bringing in the beer snake since that was his first public item of business. Don't you agree if they don't take this rebuilding seriously it will take a lot more than beer snakes to sell tickets? I don't care about beer snakes, I just don't want to keep hearing it will take another two years when we have heard that for years. Hamilton got it done in one year even after suspending Chris Williams and Edmonton who were with us last year could end up 13-5. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Yes, I think winning is job #1 and I think they understand that. They also realize that creating a fun environment and listening to what their fan base wants is another avenue towards success. It really does take both. You can argue whether or not bringing the beer snake back is creating a "fun environment". But I think it represents more the gesture then whether or not it will actually sell more tickets. It is trying to say we value you us customers to our product and we will try to give you and entertain you in the way you want to be entertained (as long as they can do it safely), rather then a take it or leave it proposition. They are trying to put the "fun" back into going to the game. Trying to make it an event, an atmosphere. You can see the beginnings of that this year with the party tent outside the stadium before the game. The DJ "traffic busters" after the game. Getting fans to raise the flag before each game. Getting people to stand and cheer on all kick-offs. It is all part of a bigger picture to create a culture and atmosphere that people enjoy and want to be a part of. (Even though a lot of it is copied from Seattle) Some of it will work, some of it won't. But at least they are trying different things. Of course they want to win and build a winner. But nothing is guaranteed. Sure they believe the right people are in place to do the job or they wouldn't be there. But we really don't know if they CAN do the job for another year or two (whether you want to hear that or not). Nothing, especially in professional sports, is certain. So yes, they are trying to build a winner. But that doesn't mean they can't try and build a fun atmosphere outside of that. It is only smart business to hedge your bets like that. And in a perfect world, when the team starts winning, and all of these things they are trying combine together, IGF will be an amazing, fun rocking place to be. And when the younger fans go and experience that first hand .... that is how you build long term support of the club. Couldn't have said it better myself...

I disagree about Lowry...I thought he was very steady as usual. I thought Bogo was not as good as the other night, he had some giveaways. Although Ladd had a good goal, I still can't get over the fact that virtually every game, he makes a bone headed pass by not looking what he is doing. Too bad Pavs let in a weak one...otherwise three shutouts in a row.

So you really believe Miller is not committed to putting a better team on the field?

The D coaches would not necessarily have to go...perhaps there is one who could take Etch's place with a different scheme.

Rich, Thanks for this, and thanks for all the work that you do behind the scenes for the benefit of all of us.

No I really don't like him as a defensive coordinator, I am just tired of hearing all the pissing and moaning about how terrible the defense was when it really wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people want to make it sound. Considering how poor the defensive line play was this season I don't see how the guy deserves a pink slip. Get some better defensive linemen in and see what the D looks like because that needs to happen regardless of who the defensive coordinator is. I get that a lot of people don't like a defensive coordinator who says stopping the run isn't a priority, but the logic is there and it really didn't cost us a lot of games this past season. I've said it before but I am far more concerned about what's going on with the offensive coaching than the defensive. Well I wouldn't really say it's pissing and moaning...it's all about having schemes on defence that allow us to be reasonable on both the pass and run, like some of the other teams that are successful. If you want to talk about getting tired...I'm really tired of having the ball run down our throats "virtually every week". I'm with you on the offence though. Defence wins championships and ours the way it is structured is simply not good enough to do that.

Alexander was hurt in Edmonton and hurt here also. Far as I'm concerned we can find better.

KptKrunch...you make some good points...it's the way you choose to do it sometimes that gets some people's hackles up.

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. Afraid not...you pick out one game to support your point of view. I don't have it backwards it is more complicated than that. You were the one who basically said the yards against rushing did not cause us to lose games. It was a bend but don't break defense originally, but we also had a pretty good pass rush. That basically went away, and what was left was rushing yards against, which Etch never figured out a way to stop. Other teams knew that obviously, and as always happens they figured out the Etch defense. Rushing yards against are very important in games in more than one way, and you just refuse to see that. But when I look back on the season I can only come up with a couple specific examples where the run defense really did cost them the game.... Labour day on the last drive by the Riders, the game in Toronto, though on a short week when the offense couldn't string together any drives they were gassed at the end so it's hard to blame them entirely, and perhaps the first game against the Esks where Rielly ran a bunch, but again it was a game where the offense couldn't get anything going. Ottawa and Edmonton blow out losses were about a complete team pants crapping so I'm not going point to just the run D there. People like to bring up the rushing defense numbers, but it's not that big a problem in the big picture. If the offense is doing it's part (and in the last part of the season they really weren't) our D was doing fine, but like any defense you don't give them a break then yeah, it all falls apart. Look at what happened to the Riders D when their offense started leaving them on the field more often, doesn't look nearly as good as it did early in the year right? Big picture our defense did an acceptable job this year keeping the team in games and giving them chances to win. No they weren't a great defense and there's areas they need to improve on in terms of talent, but most nights they did what they set out to accomplish and other parts of the team were let downs. Lot of kick return tds given up, lot of 2 and outs in the last half of the season by the offense. In many ways we agree...I'm just saying that regardless, having the run slammed down your throat virtually every game, is from even a common sense point of view, not a good thing. I agree the offence has to do their part, but hard to do if they're not on the field for long stretches...while the other team is running the ball down your throat, especially in the 4th quarter. We all know we are definitely not good against the run, and to add to that we are second last in sacks as of now. So I guess Etch's defensive schemes are good for you next year regardless of personnel? You seem to like him as defensive coordinator.

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. Afraid not...you pick out one game to support your point of view. I don't have it backwards it is more complicated than that. You were the one who basically said the yards against rushing did not cause us to lose games. It was a bend but don't break defense originally, but we also had a pretty good pass rush. That basically went away, and what was left was rushing yards against, which Etch never figured out a way to stop. Other teams knew that obviously, and as always happens they figured out the Etch defense. Rushing yards against are very important in games in more than one way, and you just refuse to see that.

The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat. We have been hurt by being the worst against the run more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored. More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against. many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us. matter of fact what I read in the paper today was particulary troubling quote from MOS "We still gave up a bunch of rushing yards but we managed to win," said O’Shea. "And that maybe lends a bit more credence to the idea that rushing yards aren’t all they’re cracked up to be." Of course, it also doesn’t hurt if, while your opponent is rushing for 214 yards, they also turn the ball over six times. How MOS could not realize why we won and that giving up that many rushing yards is a REAL problem, game in and game out is beyond me, and really troubling. It has become clear that he won't say anything like that publicly...whether he realizes it or not. I sure hope that's the case and that he doesn't really believe that, because if he does, we will likely see more of the same next year. Hopefully saner heads will prevail.

The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat. We have been hurt by being the worst against the run more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored. More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against. many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us. matter of fact what I read in the paper today was particulary troubling quote from MOS "We still gave up a bunch of rushing yards but we managed to win," said O’Shea. "And that maybe lends a bit more credence to the idea that rushing yards aren’t all they’re cracked up to be." Of course, it also doesn’t hurt if, while your opponent is rushing for 214 yards, they also turn the ball over six times. How MOS could not realize why we won and that giving up that many rushing yards is a REAL problem, game in and game out is beyond me, and really troubling.

Willy hurt his hand again, which is why he didn't play the second half. Marve said he had never played in those kind of conditions before and it was hard to get a grip on the football and also took some adjustments just to get used to playing in those kind of conditions.

I don't understand why you can't understand that he is focused solely on this game, and told the media that "everything" would be under review after it.