TrueBlue4ever

And on cue, I must again segue into this. Never gets old.

I was wondering how much of your opinion was shaped by the years that Jamie Barrisi was the OC, Buck Pierce was injured more often than not and we had the likes of Jyles, Goltz, Elliot, and Brink at the controls of the offense. And yeah, that D of Brown, Willis, Hunt and Turner Jr. on the D line, Lobendahn ,Bowman and Muamba at linebacker, and Hefney, Johnson, Suber, Stewart and Washington was going to outshine the offence. And of course, since you long staked your credibility on this site defending Joe Mack and sought to justify his record by highlighting the failings of others and minimizing his errors, I can see why you would look to LaPo for any shortcomings on those teams. Take another look at his work as an OC now. I'm not saying he is blameless for any deficiencies in the offence, but he is hardly "holding back the players" and "making less with more" like the critics would say ad nauseum. He certainly isn't the only (or in my opinion the main) reason we lost that game in Montreal. This offence is designed around ball control and Andrew Harris as its feature weapon. Given the talent Harris possesses relative to the rest of the league at his position, it seems like a shrewd game plan, and it has been putting up points, winning enough games to have us on top of the division at week 15 (can't say that this late in the season since 2011 when, yes, LaPo was the coach). I shudder to think how some on the board would have reacted to the 1984 Bombers offence, given they employed the same style of game plan to a large extent as this one (Reaves as the feature back, Clements running a methodical game that rarely went over 300 yards passing, and THAT was an offence where it was run on first down, pass on second a lot more than this one). Clements would have been run out of town for the number of slow starts and non-gaudy stats he had in most games.

Two assumptions you make are: (a) that he employs a "try not to lose game plan", and that (b) he always loses doing it. His record as an offensive co-ordinator in the CFL is 87-51-1, so he isn't losing, not by a long shot. His team has led the league in scoring each of the last 3 years. So either his "play not to lose" game plan ISN'T "doing anything but lose", or he ISN'T employing that kind of game plan in the first place. I get that the scoring numbers drop in the second half, I just don't see that it is all on the OC turtling. It is not true that the Bombers MO is simply "run on first, short pass on second" if you actually look at the play calls. And the MO certainly is "protect the football", but that approach is applied all game, not just in the 4th quarter. AND WE ARE LARGELY WINNING WITH THIS PLAN. I did notice this about the playcalling - the tempo certainly changes. I the first half there is a fast pace to the snap of the ball. In the third and fourth quarters, the QB lets the 20 second clock run right down to :01 often - makes sense if you want to eat up the clock, but the defence can anticipate the snap better and the offensive line is not getting the jump on opening the lanes. That up tempo pace that keeps the defence on its heels may be something to consider, but will not chew up clock when time is the opposition's enemy.

Calgary has done the exact same thing this year, twice at home. Blew a 15 point lead against Ottawa, gave up a late TD to lose. Had a 14 point lead on Hamilton and lost, gave up a late TD there. Up 11 with under 2 minutes against Montreal, gave up a 96 TD yard drive in 51 seconds, then a 2 point convert, then an onside kick, then 2 TDs in overtime. Anyone concerned about them right now? And hey, concern is one thing. Demanding that we gas our coordinators immediately and not even let them fly home is another. We are 9-4 with the #1 scoring offence and #1 red zone offence in the league. Sky is not falling.

According to O’Shea, we are 41-4 under him when winning the turnover battle. Playing safe (as opposed to playing soft) seems to have worked pretty well under him. No Grey Cups during that time might have something to do with the juggernaut called the Stamps as much as it does with lack of aggressiveness.

I think there are examples of the pitfalls of both approaches. Hard to imagine a team has the same mental intensity up by 24 as they do in a one score game, so that is but one factor. And we have seen the Bombers "take their foot off the gas" a lot in the second half of games this year, and in the majority of cases it has not burned them. I think O'Shea was trying to convey the message "don't assume we are going to keep rolling and destroy them, don't think about padding your stats, just keep the focus on how we got the lead and play smart disciplined football" more so than "don't rub it in". Maybe it got lost in the translation and the players took it to mean "coast" rather than "don't play cocky and think it will be just as easy the second half". I can't say, I'm not in that locker room or in the players' or coach's head. So playing soft can burn you as we saw, but also playing aggressive and running it up can backfire. Two examples I can think of are: Bombers vs. Ticats a few years back. Back-to-back games, first one in Winnipeg. Bombers up by 14 points with the game wrapped up. Bombers take a knee to kill the clock then decide to kick a field goal on the final play of the game. The justification was "in the season series, point differential may make a difference, so we should try and secure as many points as possible", which in theory was right, but because the teams played 3 games that year against each other, only if one game ended in a tie would the point differential come into play, and the optics looked bad having already taken a knee in victory formation before the kick. Well, the Ticats played up the "disrespect" angle all week and came out guns blazing and blew the doors off of us the next week (think it was 28-0 in the second quarter or something along that line). Many commentators said that the 3 extra points we added in the first game were probably worth at least 7 against us the next time out. So that was an example where piling on and "swagger" and "bravado" came back to bite us. The second example was the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl. Birds up 28-3, and had been running at will all game, but kept up the aggressive air attack in an attempt to pile up the points rather than kill the clock with long time consuming run drives. Well, we know what happened. Interception leads to touchdown, more throws lead to less time taken off the clock on offence, and the Patriots gain momentum and claw back to win in OT.

So, as usual, I take a couple of days off from the board after a game especially after a loss, ESPECIALLY after THIS loss, to get away from the insanity of the emotion right after a game, but I also read through the angry posts after my cooling off period and caught the usual flavour. Many blame Hall and his bend don't break style (which has held up in 9 wins BTW - and that last drive was more a busted coverage for a 60 yard gain than a soft zone - that WAS break, not bend, on that play at least), many blame LaPo. Some ID breakdowns in the secondary, some point to the missed kicks, one or two spread out the blame to all parties. A couple point to blown calls by the ref, especially the missed helmet swing which should have had Adams Jr. ejected by the letter of the rule. A couple looked at Streveler and his ill-timed INT, but many more seemed to be willing to give him a pass (not surprisingly, the loudest of those were the same people who have been dumping on Nichols all season and pumping Strev's tires - or blowing something else of his, since the start of the year). It is almost comical the level of self-flaggellation this fan board goes through after a defeat like this, hope there weren't too many sprained ankles from yet again hopping off the bandwagon. However, one thing in particular that has been a repeated theme is the "we go conservative on offence, why change what worked. LaPo tries to out-think himself and be a genius, he is too predictable and lousy, etc. etc." Therefore, rather than knee-jerk reacting to jump on the Lapo-bashing train or try too hard to defend him against the chattering noise without any substantive backing, I looked at the offensive play-calling from the game to get a feel at least for what was being called and if it did change, or if the critics are merely venting and seeing what they want to see to defend their inherent biases. We know Harris' carries by quarter were 5, 3, 2 and 3, and Streveler was 5, 3,1 and 3 (and 2 of those 3 in the 4th were actually both sacks), but was the reduction in running a play-calling matter or simply the fact that they ran less offensive plays overall due to Montreal being on the field longer? The raw data shows that the Bombers ran 19, 11, 12, and 12 offensive plays (counting field goals and attempts but not punts) by quarter, and Montreal ran 7, 17, 14 and 24. Anyway, here is what the numbers say. Make your own analysis of it to defend your entrenched points of view (I'm sure a few will), but I guess in the end what I see is that the same "inept, useless (fill in your vitriol-filled adjective here) LaPo playcalling" that cost us the game in the 4th is the same that got us the big lead in the first place. Maybe Montreal made adjustments, maybe the INT was a big momentum switch, maybe the issue isn't the coordinators but the players who blew assignements or caved when the pressure got too high for them. Maybe, maybe not. Bombers ran 8 pass plays, 5 QB runs, and 6 RB runs in the first quarter. It was 4-3-3 in the 2nd (and a kneel down), 7-1-3 in the 3rd (and a FG), and 5-3-3 in the 4th (and a FG miss), so aside from the lack of QB runs in the 3rd, the percentage of type of play call seemed fairly consistent. To be fair, I have not re-watched the video to see how the running plays were designed to see if the style of run (up the gut, sweep, pitch, etc.) changed, but as for the passes, this is what I can say: I looked at each pass from the point of catch (where the ball was thrown/caught relative to the line of scrimmage), the YAC yardage, and the TOTAL yards worked for (in 6 instances the pass was caught behind the line of scrimmage so the actual gain was less than the total yards worked for) 1st quarter: -4 POC, 10 YAC, 14 YWF (10 yard catch) -5 POC, 3 YAC, 8 YWF (3 yard catch) 11 POC, 1 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch) 11 POC, 0 YAC, 11 YWF (11 yard catch) 5 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (5 yard incomplete pass) 2 POC, 10 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch) 7 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (7 yard catch) 13 POC, 0 YAC, 13 YWF (13 yard TD catch) 2nd quarter: -2 POC, 11 YAC, 13 YWF (11 yard catch) 7 POC, 2 YAC, 9 YWF (9 yard catch) 35 POC, 39 YAC, 74 YWF (74 yard catch) 10 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (10 yard pass intercepted) 3rd quarter: -4 POC, 6 YAC, 10 YWF (6 yard catch) 6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch) (-) POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass incomplete out of bounds) 15 POC, 4 YAC, 19 YWF (19 yard catch) 8 POC, 6 YAC, 14 YWF (14 yard catch) -2 POC, 0 YAC, 2 YWF (0 yard catch) -6 POC, 6 YAC, 12 YWF (6 yard catch) 4th quarter: 8 POC, 7 YAC, 15 YWF (15 yard catch) 8 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (8 yard catch) 6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch) 4 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (4 yard catch) 13 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass interference called) So a quick glance at the numbers does not suggest that our game plan changed significantly in terms of run/pass play selection frequency (and how often do we hear "why get conservative and play kill the clock with the run? Throw it!" when the run gets stuffed, and then "why throw it when the run has been going so well? Chew up yards on the ground and kill the clock, don't overthink things!" when we try not to play conservative run - people will play both sides of the argument so long as it suits their "LaPo sucks" agenda at the time in question) or pass game startegy. It certainly suggests that the short pass and check down is used a lot and that we don't stretch the defence, save for Adams bomb to Harris. Funny that Nichols gets roasted for that style of "game management" but nary a peep about strong-armed Streveler not throwing further downfield than 15 yards once in this game. And hey, this short pass game plan worked gangbusters in the first half when we rolled up the points. Also (as a pre-emptive strike for those who will argue we need to anticipate the Montreal halftime adjustment and NOT stick with what was working because they will catch on), the last time we were rolling with the short pass and then shook things up against BC by inserting Streveler for Nichols, we had a quick turnover and lost the lead by NOT staying the course, so damned if you do, damned if you don't. So is it the coaches "changing things" that cause our offence to bog down, or the players losing focus, or blown assignments? I won't make a definitive statement, but you can likely guess from this post that I am not about to crucify the coaches alone for this loss. Make what you will of the numbers, if anyone can use these stats to show me how the game plan suddenly flipped from ultra aggressive to ultra conservative based on these numbers, please feel free to break it down for me. Just back it up with what is actually happening, not just what you feel is happening to match the narrative you have already created in your head to justify your bias.

If Hamilton avoided those turnovers and they would have beat Calgary last week. Calgary handled Edmonton pretty well last time out at Commonwealth, and the Esks strong home record seems to have been built on easy teams. Evans is getting more comfortable running that passing offence. I'd lean Tiger Cats (although they don't appear as mighty as some 9-3 teams have looked in the past).

Don't know that I'd agree with that assessment. Calgary has not looked dominant in many wins, and maybe that field goal block was a lucky win last week, but two of their losses at home to Ottawa and Montreal were rare late game collapses where the other teams got lucky and "stole" a win, so overall I think their record has balanced out their good and bad flukes. They are what their record says they are.

Great work! One vivid memory I have about the Rocket Ismael signing was the brilliant timing of it. The day of the NFL draft. All you had heard about for weeks leading up to it was where would Rocket go? Which NFL team would land the superstar, and what would the payday look like? He was a phenom at love 'em or hate 'em Notre Dame, who were the college equivalent of the current-day Patriots (really good, more than a touch arrogant about it, and seemingly getting all the breaks on field, plus the exclusive national TV coverage contract that no other single college team got), so the network broadcasters had an unprecedented entire day of wall-to-wall coverage planned - appreciate that this was two decades before we got the empty noise of TSN's trade deadline 12 hour specials and this kind of thing became normal. It was so over the top that it became nauseating. And then the CFL came swooping in and in one beautiful moment popped the balloon and took all of the air out of the big bad NFL and their corporate TV partners, leaving them with nothing to discuss for hours on end, trying to carry on and not admit that they got fleeced out of the most high profile draft pick in years by their poor red-headed stepchild to the north. Of all the scenarios the networks had discussed, this one was completely off the radar, and all the "analysts" looked like fools for not even contemplating it - it was so out of left field. Most visible moment for the CFL south of the border ever, when the NFL was just starting to be able to outbid the CFL for player contracts (it's hard to believe now that these leagues actually ever had similar financial footing for player salaries). Sucked for most CFL fans that it was Toronto that did it, and that they flagrantly violated the salary cap (which was "amended" on the fly to allow for one "marquee" player to legitimize the whole deal, and almost drove the whole league into bankruptcy in the process), but for one glorious moment, everyone in the US was talking about the CFL on maybe the third of fourth biggest day in the NFL calendar (behind the Super Bowl, Thanksgiving, and maybe opening day).

OK. Since 1950 (when the CFL started compiling stats for 1,000 yard receiving and rushing seasons), from 1950 to 1973, only 4 times in 24 years did the Grey Cup champ have a 1,000 yard receiver. - Wpg. in 1959, Ham. in 1963, Sask. in 1966, and Ott. in 1969 From 1974 to 2018, only 4 times in 45 years has the Grey Cup champ NOT had a 1,000 yard receiver - Mtl. in 1977, Wpg. in 1990, and Cal. in both 2014 and 2018. So in total, 24 of 69 champions since 1950 have NOT had a 1,000 yard receiver. 16 of the 69 champions have had the league leading receiver on their team. As for rushers, 32 of 69 champions have had a 1,000 yard rusher on their team (but only 2 in the last 9 years). In 1 instance, the rusher who had 1,000 yards total accumulated that total with 2 teams that season, but was on the Grey Cup champ at the end of the year. 9 times in 69 years the rushing champ has also won the Grey Cup. From 1950 to 1973, in those 24 years the Grey Cup winner had NEITHER a 1,000 yard receiver or rusher 12 times, and had BOTH only twice (Wpg. in 1959, and Sask. in 1966). From 1974 to 2018, in those 45 years the Grey Cup winner has had BOTH a 1,000 yard receiver and rusher 20 times, and had NEITHER only twice (Mtl. in 1977 and Cal. in 2018). So only 14 of 69 Grey Cup champs since 1950 have had neither a 1,000 yard receiver or rusher, and the other 55 have either one of (33 times) or both (22 times). Of those 55 teams with either a 1,000 yard receiver or rusher, 24 times has that team had the league leader in either category on their team (receiver 16 times, rusher 9 times). And yes, my math is right, because...…. Only one team in CFL history since 1950 has had both the rushing leader AND receiving leader on their team in the same season that they won the Grey Cup - Calgary in 2008.

Calgary did it last year and in 2014, both times without either a 1000 yard receiver or rusher.

Short answer is yes. Do you want the longer stats-filled version?

They got it wrong. Bombers are 9-3, Ottawa 3-9. If we win OR if Ottawa loses, we are in (technically, only a tie will do it). Do not need both to happen to clinch. (Calgary does require a win AND an Ottawa loss

Are we sure it's not Manese Foketi in disguise?

Update after week 14: WEST Winnipeg - have clinched 4th place in the division, will clinch crossover playoff spot with a win OR an Ottawa loss. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 3. Will clinch home playoff game with wins and either Calgary OR Saskatchewan losses totalling 6, will clinch west final home game with wins and Calgary AND Saskatchewan losses each totalling 6. Calgary - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 2. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 4. Will clinch home playoff game with wins and Saskatchewan losses totalling 6 (if Saskatchewan does not beat them by 28 or more points in their remaining game), will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 7 (if they beat Winnipeg by 3 points or more in their remaining game). Saskatchewan - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 2. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 4 (if they win season series). Will clinch home playoff game with wins and Calgary losses totalling 6 (if Saskatchewan beats them by 28 or more points in their remaining game), will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 7 (if they beat Winnipeg in their remaining game). Edmonton - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 4. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Saskatchewan losses totalling 8 (if they win season series) OR wins and Calgary losses totalling 9. Will clinch home game with wins and Saskatchewan AND Calgary losses totalling 9, will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 10. BC - Can finish no better than 3rd in the West. Eliminated from West playoff game with a loss or a Calgary win. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 2, OR losses and Ottawa wins totalling 5. EAST Hamilton - Have clinched 3rd place in the division. Will clinch a home playoff game with a win OR an Ottawa loss. Will clinch east final home game with wins and Montreal losses totalling 5. Montreal - Will clinch a home playoff game with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 4. Will clinch east final home game with wins and Hamilton losses totalling 9 (if they beat Hamilton in their remaining game). Ottawa - Eliminated from home east final game with a loss OR a Hamilton win. Eliminated from home playoff game with losses and Montreal wins totalling 4. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 4. Toronto - Can finish no better than 2nd in the east. Eliminated from home playoff game with losses and Montreal wins totalling 4. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 4. CLINCHING/ELIMINATION SCENARIOS THIS WEEK: Hamilton clinches a playoff spot and home playoff game with a win in Edmonton OR an Ottawa loss at home to BC. Winnipeg clinches a crossover playoff spot with a win in Montreal OR an Ottawa loss at home to BC. Calgary clinches a crossover playoff spot with a win in Toronto AND an Ottawa loss at home to BC. BC eliminated from playoffs with a loss in Ottawa AND an Edmonton win at home to Hamilton.

Again, who really cares? Why be bothered by what some troll from Sask. is going to say as unfounded rumour. Why take the bait? Rise above, Bomber fans. Don’t let them live rent free in your brain.

Who are "they"?

Who really cares?

Bombers have been 24 seasons in the West division since their last 1st place finish in 1972. In a 5 team division, that drought is even more significant than a 29 year Grey Cup drought in a 9 team league. And for those who question the importance of a first place division finish, since the Lions entered the CFL in 1954, in 65 seasons, the first place team in the West division has gone on to the Grey Cup 40 times (61.5%), the second place team 17 times (26.2%) and the third place team 8 times (12.3%). By pure coin flip the percentages should be 50-25-25 (removing any home field advantage consideration). In the East it is even more pronounced. The #1 seed made the Grey Cup 49 times (75.4%), #2 15 times (23.1%) and #3 only once (1.5%). So finishing first in either division has resulted in a 68.4% chance of getting to the Grey Cup historically.

Since the league contracted from the US expansion in 1996, there have been 10 seasons where a team has had a bye in the final week of the year (all other years we had an 8 team league) due to the unbalanced schedule. Of those 10 seasons, here are the results: 1996 - Edmonton bye, then won West semi at home over Winnipeg (went on to lose in the Grey Cup) 2002 - Hamilton bye, out of playoffs 2003 - Hamilton bye, out of playoffs 2004 - Edmonton bye, lost West semi at home to Saskatchewan 2005 - Winnipeg bye, out of playoffs 2014 - Winnipeg bye, out of playoffs 2015 - Edmonton bye, then another week off before winning West division final at home over Calgary (went on to win the Grey Cup) 2016 - Calgary bye, then another week off before winning West division final at home over BC (went on to lose the Grey Cup in overtime) 2017 - Ottawa bye, then lost the east semi final at home to Saskatchewan 2018 - Saskatchewan bye, then lost the West semi final at home to Winnipeg So of the 6 teams that went into the playoffs after a final week bye, all had a home playoff game and their record was 3-3, including 2-0 for those with a "double bye" right into the division final.

Surprisingly, not too early to start analyzing the playoff race. All scenarios do NOT consider the possibility of ties at this point, just too complicated to factor in that possibility at this point. WEST Winnipeg - have clinched 4th place in the division, will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 2. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 3. Will clinch home playoff game with wins and either Calgary OR Saskatchewan losses totalling 6, will clinch west final home game with wins and Calgary AND Saskatchewan losses totalling 6. Calgary - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 4. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 5. Will clinch home playoff game with wins and Saskatchewan losses totalling 7 (if Saskatchewan does not beat them by 28 or more points in their remaining game), will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 8 (if they beat Winnipeg by 3 points or more in their remaining game). Saskatchewan - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 4. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Edmonton losses totalling 5 (if they win season series). Will clinch home playoff game with wins and Calgary losses totalling 7 (if Saskatchewan beats them by 28 or more points in their remaining game), will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 8 (if they beat Winnipeg in their remaining game). Edmonton - Will clinch crossover playoff spot with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 5. Will clinch west playoff spot with wins and Saskatchewan losses totalling 8 (if they win season series) OR wins and Calgary losses totalling 9. Will clinch home game with wins and Saskatchewan AND Calgary losses totalling 9, will clinch west final home game with wins and Winnipeg losses totalling 10. BC - Can finish no better than 2nd in the West. Eliminated from home playoff game with 1 loss or a Saskatchewan win OR a combo of losses and Calgary wins totalling 2. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 2, OR losses and Ottawa wins totalling 5. EAST Hamilton - Have clinched 3rd place in the division. Will clinch a home playoff game with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 2. Will clinch east final home game with wins and Montreal losses totalling 4. Montreal - Will clinch a home playoff game with wins and Ottawa losses totalling 5. Will clinch east final home game with wins and Hamilton losses totalling 11 (if they beat Hamilton in their remaining game). Ottawa - Eliminated from home east final game with losses and Hamilton wins totalling 2. Eliminated from home playoff game with losses and Montreal wins totalling 5. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 5. Toronto - Can finish no better than 2nd in the east. Eliminated from home playoff game with losses and Montreal wins totalling 4. Eliminated from playoffs with losses and Edmonton wins totalling 4. CLINCHING SCENARIOS THIS WEEK: Hamilton clinches a playoff spot with a win in Calgary and an Ottawa loss in BC.

No "thinking" required - that combination by the math WILL guarantee us first place.

Crown Royal (manufactured in Gimli - Northern Harvest blend won "whiskey of the year" internationally last year) and Jeannie's Cake (any Sobey's or Family Foods will have)

We need duplicate names again in the CFL, so Yukon Eskimos it is. And we need to embrace the past history of Ottawa and open up American expansion again, just to bring back San Antonio and have 3 Rough Rider teams!