Would the Bomber's record be 3 - 4 if MOS had inserted Matt Nichols when Willy was struggling in game one?

[TBURGESS]

6 minutes ago, bearpants said:

yeah that's the article I saw also... and I'm pretty sure that's who it is...

Fair enough.

[Atomic]

Lol an article quoting GBill on CFL salaries, now I've seen everything

[bigg jay]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

Lol an article quoting GBill on CFL salaries, now I've seen everything

He's finally getting the credit he always wanted. 

[17to85]

4 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

He's finally getting the credit he always wanted. 

Truly the greatest insider of our time. 

[IC Khari]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Truly the greatest insider of our time. 

[WBBFanWest]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Truly the greatest insider of our time. 

And we should all feel humbled and grateful that for a while, GBill graced us with his presence.  Truly, it was a magical time.  By the way, my sources are telling me that there will definitely be some roster changes for the Bombers this off season.  Stay tuned for more hard hitting insider stuff.

[Dragon37]

On August 4, 2016 at 7:35 AM, IC Khari said:

Anyone not think at the very least we'd be a win or two better?

It really is a moot point but it may have helped Willy get over his struggles. Then again maybe not. IMHO I did not expect the change at QB to have this much effect. Nichols has actually shocked me with his play. He's not tearing up the field or anything but he has played far better and been crazy efficient and he had never really shown that before. Only two TDS but no picks and really, really good execution. Paint me very surprised and pleased.

[Fatty Liver]

I don't think anyone would have predicted that the D would start playing as well as they have since the Edm. game with a decimated secondary, that's the real story.  If the O can consistently produce 20-25 points a game they should be in every contest.  ST has also played a huge role securing great field position and basically shutting down all returns.

[Guest J5V]

My question is, who makes the hard decision as to who plays as a full-time starter on this team? I would then ask that person(s) why it took a rash of injuries to get, seemingly, the right personnel on the field to help this team win and why weren't they on the field in the first place?

[Taynted_Fayth]

I still think we should have beat edmonton at home on july 17th,  we were up 16-0 (i think) at one point, or maybe 16-3 but we started playing soft D and reilly/bowman/walker picked us apart. I think that 2nd half break down should have been the rise of Nichols at least in the 4th.  our fate could have been different that game,  and who knows maybe nichols gets the start vs calgary the following week.  

[IC Khari]

Water under the bridge I guess, just happy they are finally realizing the personnel blunders and fielding a team that gives us a chance now. This really reminds me of when Dave Ritchie stubbornly started Kerwin Bell (who was doing nothing) in 2000 until they finally relented and unleashed Khari Jones in a game in Edmonton. Kerwin Bell went to the Argos and the rest is history ...

[Guest J5V]

Since a change of player personnel has produced such a dramatic difference in our fortunes of late I can't help but wonder if a change of coaching/management personnel might not produce the same sort of change of fortune.

[Guest J5V]

4 hours ago, IC Khari said:

Water under the bridge I guess, just happy they are finally realizing the personnel blunders and fielding a team that gives us a chance now. This really reminds me of when Dave Ritchie stubbornly started Kerwin Bell (who was doing nothing) in 2000 until they finally relented and unleashed Khari Jones in a game in Edmonton. Kerwin Bell went to the Argos and the rest is history ...

Ironic though that in his darkest moment as a head coach here it was a fortunate spate of injuries to key personnel that might have saved MOS his job.

[Jpan85]

6 minutes ago, J5V said:

Ironic though that in his darkest moment as a head coach here it was a fortunate spate of injuries to key personnel that might have saved MOS his job.

 

[Guest J5V]

3 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

 

Except of course that the execution was performed by players that coaching had determined were best left on the bench. Or is Gary suggesting that that was the gameplan all along? ;-)

[Mr Dee]

Why is a statement, that hasn't been made by rival GMs for a long, long time, fuel for nit-picking?

[yogi]

Just now, Mr Dee said:

Why is a statement, that hasn't been made by rival GMs for a long, long time, fuel for nit-picking?

Because there's a vocal minority of ******* morons on here

[yogi]

41 minutes ago, J5V said:

Except of course that the execution was performed by players that coaching had determined were best left on the bench. Or is Gary suggesting that that was the gameplan all along? ;-)

True, having depth does reflect poorly on the head coach...

[comedygeek]

18 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

It really is a moot point but it may have helped Willy get over his struggles. Then again maybe not. IMHO I did not expect the change at QB to have this much effect. Nichols has actually shocked me with his play. He's not tearing up the field or anything but he has played far better and been crazy efficient and he had never really shown that before. Only two TDS but no picks and really, really good execution. Paint me very surprised and pleased.

4 TDs. (Unless you were just referring to the last game.)

[Dragon37]

Yeah. My brain clearly wasn't functioning very well. I stand corrected.

[White Out]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that depth is a bad look for MOS. In fact I think everyone knows that. The suggestion, which is perfectly legit, is that MOS had the wrong starters on the field to begin with. Wrong alignments, wrong starters. What's so bad about that? 

Is anyone here really disputing that Bond and Loffler should have been on the field day 1? 

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, White Out said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that depth is a bad look for MOS. In fact I think everyone knows that. The suggestion, which is perfectly legit, is that MOS had the wrong starters on the field to begin with. Wrong alignments, wrong starters. What's so bad about that? 

Is anyone here really disputing that Bond and Loffler should have been on the field day 1? 

I am. Unless you think putting out a complete rookie who still doesn't have all the scheme concepts down pat and a guy who was too injured to play would've been a good idea.

[White Out]

Just now, Mike said:

I am. Unless you think putting out a complete rookie who still doesn't have all the scheme concepts down pat and a guy who was too injured to play would've been a good idea.

Didn't know Bond was injured. My understanding of that situation is that he wasn't starting because he was an import. 

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, White Out said:

Didn't know Bond was injured. My understanding of that situation is that he wasn't starting because he was an import. 

I think at some point that was the case. And I don't think the move to Loffler/Bond was a choice that was based on anything but injury. But they definitely weren't ready to go week 1.

[Nash00]

If we throw Loffler out to the wolves in Week 1 and gets shredded, all we would hear is that MOS started a green rookie and our depth sucks because we have to start a rookie at S etc. etc. Let the kid grow into the role and take over when ready. I don't think anyone could have expected him to ascend to where he is now at the pace he has, despite being one of the more pro-ready prospects in the draft.