TrueBlue4ever

Brandon Dyson And old school - Angelo Mosca

Let me just interject here and say THIS is what a good football forum offers. Lots of differing opinions, disagreement between posters, but civil discussion and lots of intelligent thoughts and valid arguments on all sides, regardless of your stance. I have enjoyed the debate on this topic. You stay classy, San Diego!

This topic could have the makings of a poll question. Two more for you. Ed Philion. Nick Benjamin.

I guess my comments are in response the original post comment that this method would "settle arguments" or that Nichols is "having a bad year". I'm not sure how this system objectively or consistently measures good vs bad, so I don't see it as a valuable tool. Maybe a throw in the dirt is accurate because the QB wanted to keep it low to avoid the knockdown or INT, and was simply trying for a first down and not a 35 YAC yard type of play. Only the QB will truly know where they intended for the pass to go compared to where it ended up. Ricky Ray was a master at lofting the high sideline ball where only his receiver had a play on it, incredibly accurate to my mind, but who can say how Ferguson would rank it? (receiver had to go and get a ball in a tough spot, bad throw? - maybe it's meant to be in a tough spot so the defender also has a tough time getting to it). My "deep balls preference" theory is based solely on the limited examples Ferguson uses to outline his criteria, and he mentions low or behind the receivers throws as bad, and uses video of YAC yards catches as good, so I am only guessing based on what he provided as his measuring stick. Again, his lack of a clear consistent metric beyond "this looks good to me" diminishes the objective credibility of his rankings. A better way? Well, incorporating completion percentage would be a great start. I think we can all agree that a QB who threw at an 80% completion rate was more accurate than one who threw 50% on an objective basis of measurement. Maybe award higher points for longer completions. A QB who throws 70% overall, but is 13/13 in throws between 0-10 yards, 6/10 in throws from 10-20 yards, and 2/7 in throws over 20 yards may not be as highly ranked for accuracy as one who with a 66.6% completion rate but is 3/3 from 0-5 yards, 5/7 from 10-20 yards, and 12/20 from 20+ yards. Just as an example. Hey, it's his thing, and kudos for thinking outside the box in finding a way to crunch numbers to evaluate QBs, but it seems too subjective and impossible to verify through consistent data to be taken as a way to rank QB performance fairly. Just my opinion.

Any reason, given the big yards he has thrown for this year so far, to think that he won't go off?

But BC didn't try to establish the run game the last time, and they seemed to have learned their lesson since in diversifying their playbook. But yeah, the Edmonton pressure will have to be much better handled for sure.

Here is my issue with it - he is using a subjective "eye test" to decide personally what "looks like" a good pass to him, and giving it a grade. Now, he may have no skin in the game and will rank QBs evenly based on the throw and not the thrower, but if he doesn't prefer a certain style of pass, it will hinder the scoring for that QB. Using an efficiency rating (where Nichols is at 120.7 and #1 in the league for QBs with more than 50 pass attempts, and only behind Arbuckle for QBs with more than 6 attempts) incorporates raw data like completion percentage, TD/interception ratio, yards per pass and yards per attempt to determine a more objective number that more properly ranks QBs equally for the metric it tries to define. Streveler rates higher, and Nichols should rate highly because they use a short passing game with lots of short passes to the running backs, and those should be easier to throw than than crossing route into a seam between multiple defenders. But looking at some of the examples of what Ferguson grades his passes on, he seems to like the deeper downfield throws. As an example, Mike Reilly likes to throw up the jump ball passes and let his tall receivers out-duel the shorter defensive backs on what we call "50/50 balls". But it's easy to say that the pass is accurate, because it is not behind there receiver or low, which he likes to pick on. And how many times do we see a receiver change their running pace to "slow down" or adjust to the ball in the air, to be able to speed up and the last moment to gain separation form the defender or catch the ball in stride. That may translate into an accurate pass, but how much of that is on the QB hitting the target perfectly and how much is on the receiver adjusting to the ball in flight to "move the target" and meet the ball? YAC yards seems to be a big thing based on Ferguson's "eye test" metric (because to him the perfect pass is hitting the receiver in stride so they don't have to change their route). I think of 3 passes in particular Nichols threw in the last game, two I believe came on the drive where Hardrick took the roughing penalty, that would be subject to a low grade but in my mind were put exactly where Nichols wanted them to be. The first pass was a sideline throw to Darvin Adams for about a 25 yard gain on 2nd and 10, where Adams made a great leaping catch. That would rank low on the rating scale because Adams had to adjust to the high wide ball and made no YAC yards, might score a 1 or 2. But Nichols put the ball where no other player was going to be able to make a play on it, so if Adams doesn't make the catch it falls incomplete out of bounds, and maybe Nichols trusts that Adams can make the high catch, so puts it up there for him rather than risking hitting him in stride down the sideline where a defender might step in front of it for an INT. Much safer than a Mike Reilly rainbow toss 40 yards down the middle of the field into double coverage where Duke Williams out jumps the corner and the safety, but the throw could be more "accurate" since it hits the target zone, but could be picked off more easily if not for the athleticism of his receiver. That to me is a flaw in the judgment system Ferguson employs. The second pass was to Drew Wolitarsky. Nichols threw a dart over the middle that Wolitarsky went down to the turf to catch. Will score maybe at best a 2 because the receiver got zero YAC yards and had to go low to scoop the ball off the turf. But looked at another way, Nichols again puts the ball where only his receiver can make a play on it, threading a needle with defenders close by. And it went for 9 yards when the Bombers needed 8 for a first down. To me that is a perfectly placed ball, but according to Ferguson's video examples, that would be a bad pass. Wolitarsky makes a very nice catch, but was it a bad throw he had to go down for, or was it meant to be a low pass designed for Drew to go low and secure the first down with zero risk of interception if he can't squeeze it? The last throw was the called back TD to Adams. Could score high because Nichols led the receiver and hit him in stride, or could score low because it was "too far in front" of Adams, and only the brilliant one-handed catch saves the off-target throw. Who, other than Ferguson, can say? Or does it even count because the penalty wiped out the pass altogether? So it might be a nice idea, but unless Ferguson wants to justify his scoring on every pass publicly, all he is doing is assigning his own subjective ranking system of what in his mind makes a good pass, with no real consistent real raw data to validate his opinions.

OK, am I completely out to lunch on thinking the Lions could win tonight? They were winning 11-0 in Edmonton before the wheels came off, and home advantage carries weight for many teams. Think Reilly can bounce back after last week's game, and as much as BC is 1-3 with a questionable win against the Argos last week, I am reminded that they have had a meat grinder of a schedule to start the year (Winnipeg home game they were leading until a shocking conversion block flipped the momentum, then 3 straight on the road where they led in all games and frankly gave away a win in Calgary). How much will the short week (5 days) vs. a bye-week-rested Eskimo team make a difference?

I honestly was expecting someone to bring that up when I posted, but your version of it is inaccurate. The Eskimos had trailed 20-0 at one point and erased a 27-14 deficit in the 4th quarter. The Bombers had gassed a 35 yard field goal that would have put them up by 6 points with three minutes left, and Edmonton tied the game with a field goal with something like 15 seconds left after converting a 3rd and 10 where Demond Washington tried for a pick instead of a knockdown and tipped the ball into Fred Stamps' hands for a 51 yard gain. So with the team reeling from multiple errors (including 4 turnovers) that gave away the lead late, Burke opted to have the offence take a knee from its own 35 yard line and reset going into OT rather than force something downfield and risk a turnover (you KNOW that if the team had forced something and created a turnover fans would be screaming "WHY DIDN'T HE TAKE A KNEE????? ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD TRY A LOW PERCENTAGE PLAY FROM HIS OWN END WITH SECONDS LEFT WHEN YOU COULD STILL GO OT OT!!!!!!!!") There is a good amount of stuff to criticize Burke for, especially his penchant for throwing players under the bus for losses rather than protecting them late in his tenure when they quit playing for him, as the team was mailing it in on the way to a 3-15 season, but I will defend him insomuch as it was a lot more the fault of Joe Mack and his roster management, and the no-win situation Burke inherited. So pick on Burke and ignore the failings of Mack if you want, but don't make up phony stuff to fit your "Tim Burke was awful and taking a knee to quit while behind is proof" narrative. Burke was better than that, and you should be too.

I used to think that, no matter what, since they can catch passes for TDs or were almost always fed the ball inside the 5 yard line. But now QBs are the ones keeping the ball on the goal line in short yardage (3 of the 4 top TD totals last year came from QBs), so it isn't a given. And the majority of 2 point conversion tries seem to be passes rather than runs.

Darvin Adams

Not really even live movies, given the amount of CGI involved.

Mike Miller says "nice try chump"

Hey Adrenaline, why is your profile avatar the new Rider mascot?

I vote that those whose handles are too long to fit into a single line on their posts lose the tie breaker. No bias. :-)

I still want the rule where if your player gets a TD, you get a +1, he doesn't score (or you miss the week) you get a -1, he gets a 2 point convert you get a zero for that week, highest score at the end of the year wins, no knockouts.

After an appropriate cooling down period for sober reflection minus the emotional bent, some thoughts on the game: - Like the confidence of the coaching staff to go for 3rd and short gambles that are not "3rd and inches" gimmes, but Streveler saved the o-line's bacon on a couple of occasions with pure strength, grit, and never quit attitude. Should have been stuffed at least twice due to a bad push from the line, but found a way to outmuscle the defensive player and get the first down. Good to know he can make something out of nothing, but we are going to get burned on a key 3rd down attempt if those o-line mistakes are not corrected. - Having said that, those who pine for Streveler to take over the starting job from Nichols during the course of this season should not hold their breath. Wasn't too inspired by his play once he came in full time, certainly not compared to how methodical Nichols looked moving the offence. - Very confused why the command centre did not call down and point out the facemask that ripped Harris' helmet off. I'm pretty positive they can make a call on any penalty play even if the coach cannot challenge it. But I get why the on-field refs missed it. Harris was not in a spot where it was clearly visible from the backfield judge or anyone other than the sideline crew, and his helmet comes off so easily every game it would be simple to assume it just popped off rather than being pulled off. Dude needs to tighten that chinstrap. - Everyone was so pumped to get Chris Matthews back and see what he could do. Still waiting. Meanwhile, quietly forgotten sidekick Darvin Adams made some spectacular clutch catches in the game to move the chains on second and long. - Still think Ryan Lankford has the physical tools to be a big return threat, but Friday night was another example of how it is between the ears that is holding him back, and at this point I don't see coaching being able to correct that. - Would just like to note that the Bomber defence has not allowed a touchdown in the last 34 opposition drives, and in 39 of 40 so far this season. Tip of the cap to the oft-maligned defensive co-ordinator Richie Hall. - Would just like to note that the Bombers were the only CFL team to score at least 2 offensive TDs in every game last year, have scored 4 offensive TDs in each game so far this year (12 in 43 total drives), are 9 out of 11 in converting red zone opportunities into TDs this year (the only two times they have failed is when they took a knee at the end of the game to run out the clock deep in opposition territory), and have scored a TD in their opening drive of the second half in each game this year. Tip of the cap to oft-maligned offensive co-ordinator Paul LaPolice. - Ottawa actually took a knee out of "victory formation" on 3rd down with 20 seconds left on the clock, literally conceding a turnover to the Bombers on their own 20 yard line while trailing in the game. Have never seen that before.

Given how drunk Gotmilt would need to be to actually be brave enough to follow through on his internet tough guy claim, it would really be more like me holding him up rather than holding him down, but point taken. Matt wouldn't need any assistance anyway. Those mitts of his are huge.

Let me know when you are going. I always like to see an assclown get what they deserve........courtesy of a Matt Dunigan punch in the face while I hold said assclown down. Not even joking. :-)

Given the full team performance, have to give a star to each of offence, defence, and special teams. Nichols - spread the ball around, controlled the clock, 80% completion rate, would have hit 300 yards passing if not for the early departure, and didn’t hook slide too early. Rose - 5 tackles, big pick, and bigger fumble recovery. Despite only one sack,Jefferson gets an honourable mention for the havoc in the backfield he caused. Miller - 7 tackles and thundering hits. HH - Medlock missed 2 field goals but still made the play of the game. The punt was amazing for its placement, but the awareness to hustle down and recover it inspired a whole team. Goat - Nelson fumbled a punt, knocked out his own QB on a scramble, then fumbled again to give up the only TD against in the game.

Speedy B

Add a 4th for today, and a very sad one. Still awaiting confirmation but twitter is reporting: Janet Arnott, local curler who won the Scotties 3 times (medallist 9 times, including 3 silver and 3 bronze) and a World Championship in 1984 (medallist 3 times, including one silver and one bronze) with Connie Laliberte (her sister), then went on to play with Cathy Overton-Clapham, and finished her playing career with Jennifer Jones' rink in 2007, appearing in her last Scotties, where she earned her 4th bronze medal (and 10th overall). Lost in the finals of the Olympic Curling trials for Calgary in 1988. Then went on to coach Jennifer Jones' squad starting in 2008, and helped them get to 7 more Scottie tournaments, winning 3 times (in 2008, 09, and 10, and winning the World Championship in 2008. Won the Olympic trials in 2013 and the Olympic Gold Medal in Sochi in 2014, after which she retired from coaching the team.

Here are each team's 20 years or longer (except Edmonton) Grey Cup droughts: BC - 21 years (1964-85) Edm -19 years (1956-75) Cal - 23 years (1948-71), 21 years (1971-92) Sask - 44 years* (team founded in 1910, could not play for the Grey Cup until 1921, barred from playing in 1940 due to different Western rules, so 1921-39, 41-66), 23 years (1966-89) Wpg - 29 years (1990-present), 22 years (1962-84) Hamilton - 20 years (1999-present) Toronto - 31 years (1952-83) Ottawa - 27 years* (40 years from 1976-2016, but no team from 1997-2001 and 2006-13) Montreal - 21 years (1949-70), 16 years* (25 years from 1977-2002, but no team from 1987-95)

On point #1, this might be where Demski becomes crucial leaking out of the backfield as a swing pass option so they can't spy on Harris all game. Also, pitch outs and sweeps for running plays outside the tackles would be good. Nice to establish inside runs, but spread it out to keep them from loading the box. As also mentioned, penalties and turnovers. Edmonton was awfully undisciplined against the Lions last week, and were also against the Als - we need to take advantage of the free plays they give us. I see the Eskimos keeping the refs busy picking their laundry up off the turf tonight