OK, it IS Willy ...

[wbbfan]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

Odd argument considering medlock would be considered special teams and actually put up 18 of our 30 points vs Edmonton 

Biased claims based on vague notions seldom hold up well to facts and stats. If frederick didnt have that pick to save the game and we went on the lose people would be roasting nichols for his inability to score in the red zone and clamoring how he was carried by the OL and run game against the worst defense in the league and that willy would have won the game. Or davis, or some qb from another team that we totally should have had the fore sight to pick up because hind sight and fore sight are equal right?

[Blueandgold]

23 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Odd argument considering medlock would be considered special teams and actually put up 18 of our 30 points vs Edmonton 

Driving down the field and kicking a field goal is not considered special teams, but returning a punt or blocking a punt etc for a touch down is. Use common sense.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

3 hours ago, White Out said:

These are the same flawed arguments that kept Pavelec in net for years 

Will you please stop dragging out that same poor mule that you beat over and over?

[Doublezero]

2 hours ago, Goalie said:

Odd argument considering medlock would be considered special teams and actually put up 18 of our 30 points vs Edmonton 

What I meant was Randle took a pick to the house for six points, and without those points we would have lost the game because Drew Willy and the O didn't generate enough points to win the game - so the win was a direct result of the D adding scores. Otherwise it would have been a loss.  Another win (in that early stretch of wins in 2014) was the result of a Demond Washington kick return for a TD. Without those 6 points Bombers would have lost the game because the O could not generate enough points to win on its own. There was a another game where the D was responsible for the win too.

[wbbfan]

1 hour ago, Blueandgold said:

Driving down the field and kicking a field goal is not considered special teams, but returning a punt or blocking a punt etc for a touch down is. Use common sense.

No its still considered Sts. Same as driving down the field punting and pinning the other team deep. 

[Goalie]

Couldn't you make the argument that the D is responsible for every win tho? I mean without the D... the other team would score more points. The idea is the team that scores most wins... who cares if it's 10 fgs or 4 pick 6 or 4 rushing TDS.  Points are points . I'm just saying that if you are going to use something to bash Willy and Praise Nichols... be fair. Nichols was 5 and 2 as Esks starter b4 being traded to Winnipeg.  You know how many games the D was responsible for winning?  All of them. What was his record here? More losses than wins. What are people gonna say when cuz it is when Nichols struggles and we lose? It's almost like people think Nichols is some fresh faced saviour when in reality he's a proven commodity. He will win some... he will lose some and probably more. 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Goalie

[WBBFanWest]

• Peronally, I don't care if we win by kicking 30 rouges.  A win is a win.

[Goalie]

I'll just leave it here. Drew Willy may not be the future of this team but I'm 100 percent positive that Matt Nichols isn't either. 

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, wbbfan said:

No they werent. Ac was cut by hammer and we along with most teams didnt have interest in him as a back up. Damon allen lost his starting job and despite a long career in bc was let go with few teams interested as well. Ray had a poor 2010 and a solid bounce back in 2011. His trade was more of a surprise but his best production seemed behind him and in good part due to great pieces around him. Those are just situations off the top of my head that prove your point wrong. Buck pierce, casey printers, marcus crandell and more all had the exact opposite of what you claim happen too.

He is in the same league literally. You think a 5 game win streak doesn't put him in the same level as other starters that struggled on under achieving teams and went on to a great deal of success, yet you think one good game against the worst D in the league means Nichols is better? pot meet kettle. 

If you read my posts, you will learn that I am far from convinced that Nichols is The Answer. Those you cited had proven themselves beyond 5 wins that they had potential. Willy has not.

[wbbfan]

1 minute ago, tracker said:

If you read my posts, you will learn that I am far from convinced that Nichols is The Answer. Those you cited had proven themselves beyond 5 wins that they had potential. Willy has not.

you clearly think he's the answer over willy.  a QB doesnt get a start w/l record any more then any other player. And he hasnt won 5 games as a pro hes won far more then that. In those 5 wins in a row he showed and did more then guys like crandell with more. And More then buck did in his time here.

[kelownabomberfan]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Will you please stop dragging out that same poor mule that you beat over and over?

[rebusrankin]

3 hours ago, wbbfan said:

No they werent. Ac was cut by hammer and we along with most teams didnt have interest in him as a back up. Damon allen lost his starting job and despite a long career in bc was let go with few teams interested as well. Ray had a poor 2010 and a solid bounce back in 2011. His trade was more of a surprise but his best production seemed behind him and in good part due to great pieces around him. Those are just situations off the top of my head that prove your point wrong. Buck pierce, casey printers, marcus crandell and more all had the exact opposite of what you claim happen too.

He is in the same league literally. You think a 5 game win streak doesnt put him in the same level as other starters that struggled on under achieving teams and went on to a great deal of success, yet you think one good game against the worst D in the league means Nichols is better? pot meet kettle. 

A.C. is an outlier in many ways. So so rookie year in Vegas in 94, three up and down years in the Hammer (95-97), goes to Montreal as a backup. Emerges as a starter in 2000. Most QBs don't get six years to emerge and most don't follow this career path.

Ray trade was criticized by many at the time (ie Eskies roasted).

Allen emerged in 1987 and Edmonton made him starter in 88. He signed as an FA in Ottawa in 1989 and stayed there until he signed as an FA with Hamilton in 1992. Traded back to Edmonton in 1993. FA signing in Memphis in 1995. Dispersal draft lands him in BC. Traded in 2003 to Toronto when 39. He wasn't really let go too much really, just choose to move as an FA.

[Mr Dee]

Quote

Mr Anybody took a pick to the house for six points, and without those points we would have lost the game

Quote

so the win was a direct result of the D adding scores.

Quote

Without those 6 points blank team would have lost the game because the O could not generate enough points to win on its own.

This could very well be the basis for an argument for any football team. The components of the team are offence, defence and special teams. 

If 2 out of those 3 components win the battle, you have a decent chance to win the game. So, does it really matter which components actually win the game for you?

[wbbfan]

On 7/29/2016 at 10:12 AM, TrueBlue4ever said:

 

Actually it was the reverse. 7 carries in the 1st half, 15 in the 2nd plus the one reception. They didn't go away from him at all, they just didn't get the big gainers like they did in the first half. He was more of a clock-killer in the 2nd half.

Thats simply not true. 8 carries in the first quarter 7 in the second. 3 in the 3rd. 4 in the 4th. His first run in the 4th was for 22 yards. We ran him twice early twice late in the 4th. 

http://www.cfl.ca/games/2296/winnipeg-blue-bombers-vs-edmonton-eskimos/#playbyplay

Edited July 31, 2016 by wbbfan

[wbbfan]

2 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

This could very well be the basis for an argument for any football team. The components of the team are offence, defence and special teams. 

If 2 out of those 3 components win the battle, you have a decent chance to win the game. So, does it really matter which components actually win the game for you?

no kidding. With out the pick by frederick we lose in edmonton. With out juran boldens pick 6 against hammy in 2000 east semi we lose then too. (or was it east final 2001?) There is allways a defensive play that gets the ball back to the offense when a game is won late. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

36 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Edited July 31, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Fatty Liver]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Hey, where's your classic???

[iso_55]

5 hours ago, wbbfan said:

No they werent. Ac was cut by hammer and we along with most teams didnt have interest in him as a back up. Damon allen lost his starting job and despite a long career in bc was let go with few teams interested as well. Ray had a poor 2010 and a solid bounce back in 2011. His trade was more of a surprise but his best production seemed behind him and in good part due to great pieces around him. Those are just situations off the top of my head that prove your point wrong. Buck pierce, casey printers, marcus crandell and more all had the exact opposite of what you claim happen too.

He is in the same league literally. You think a 5 game win streak doesnt put him in the same level as other starters that struggled on under achieving teams and went on to a great deal of success, yet you think one good game against the worst D in the league means Nichols is better? pot meet kettle. 

I don't care if Willy does well somewhere else. I just care about his time here. You don't hold onto a player with the HOPE he does better in the next year... if he goes somewhere else & does well, more power to him. But to keep him because you're worried he'll do better somewhere else? That's not how to manage personnel on a team.

[Doublezero]

3 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

This could very well be the basis for an argument for any football team. The components of the team are offence, defence and special teams. 

If 2 out of those 3 components win the battle, you have a decent chance to win the game. So, does it really matter which components actually win the game for you?

My reply was to those who keep repeating that Drew Willy was on fire and pretty much single-handedly won a bunch of games for Bombers in early 2014 and wouldn't it be great if he could return to his old form etc. The idea that Drew Willy orchestrated 5-6 wins early in 2014 is a myth. He contributed majorly to a couple of them, for sure. But Bombers needed outstanding play - and, most importantly major scores - from other elements of the team. So yes, I agree with you - it doesn't matter which components of the team win the game for you - unless you attribute the win (as some have) to the play of the QB which in a few of those early 2014 wins was less than stellar, very average and nothing to write home about.

[Taynted_Fayth]

So my wonder atm is;  Nichols has definitely played himself into the next start, but what if he falters? Does he get the same amount of patience Willy was show out of the gate this year, or will they quickly throw willy back in.  If willy is thrown back in has he had enough time to work on his issues or is it back to square one?  Or is willy's time essentially done, and Davis gets an opportunity?

[Tracker]

5 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

So my wonder atm is;  Nichols has definitely played himself into the next start, but what if he falters? Does he get the same amount of patience Willy was show out of the gate this year, or will they quickly throw willy back in.  If willy is thrown back in has he had enough time to work on his issues or is it back to square one?  Or is willy's time essentially done, and Davis gets an opportunity?

That is the big question for the 2016 Bombers, and a very real possibility. Nichols may work as a stopgap measure but we have little reason to hope that he can be the starting quarterback of the next few years. It would be great if he could carry the team for the next 2-3 years while a younger pivot is groomed, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it just yet. The next questions are: do either Davis or Bennett fit the description, and if not, can Walters be trusted enough to find the right quarterback?

[White Out]

15 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Will you please stop dragging out that same poor mule that you beat over and over?

It's a perfectly cromulent comparison. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

6 minutes ago, White Out said:

It's a perfectly cromulent comparison. 

only if it embiggens the smallest man

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

54 minutes ago, White Out said:

It's a perfectly cromulent comparison. 

Your acumen, embiggens the smallest man. 

Edited July 31, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy
Simpson awesomeness

[wbbfan]

4 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

So my wonder atm is;  Nichols has definitely played himself into the next start, but what if he falters? Does he get the same amount of patience Willy was show out of the gate this year, or will they quickly throw willy back in.  If willy is thrown back in has he had enough time to work on his issues or is it back to square one?  Or is willy's time essentially done, and Davis gets an opportunity?

thats a good question, on mos knows the answer. I would think nichols would have a decent in side the game leash. If it turns into a massive blow out i dont think he will change. If its close i dont thing he will change. IF nichols is failing and possibly throws the game away then i think he'd make the change.