Is It Real?

[do or die]

This thread has taken on a rather circular shape, indeed......

[TBURGESS]

24 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

It's because you really don't look at both sides of the coin. You focus on the negative as much as others only focus on the positive. You are not objective, you are negative that is backed up by your posting history. There are very very few people round these parts who are actually objective, everyone has their own slant one way or the other and there are degrees of it, but you sir are a negative slanted person. 

Of course I look at both sides of the coin, but I understand where you don't see it that way. 

Unfounded negativity would be bad thing, but negativity founded in facts isn't IMO and I don't consider it negative to look at how we got where we are anyway.

It would be much better to actually discuss the issues rather than focusing on the perceived level of their negativity, but that's not the way it works around here. 

[do or die]

....or is it a corkscrew shape?

[Atomic]

3 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

We surely don't need a souring of our victories by pointing out the other team's deficiencies, especially after having so many of our own over the years.

How can you judge a team's performance without considering their opponents?

[TBURGESS]

It is as it has always been around here. Some folks would much rather argue with other posters than talk about the thread topic. Take the focus off of 'Is it real' and turn it into 'You're negative'.

[Mr Dee]

16 minutes ago, Atomic said:

How can you judge a team's performance without considering their opponents?

And I think we do..

[Tracker]

Bomber fans have been so starved for optimism that they can be forgiven for being giddy at the moment. Reality does keep intruding, though, so we will have to wait until after the Labour Day match-ups before we can start feeling confident.

[17to85]

You are so blind you actually think you are objective, that's why you don't realize you're just being negative. 

 

As I said, the number of people around here who are truly objective on any fan site is so small. Everyone has their own biases and their own slant on things. 

[do or die]

Pavlovian Alert!

[LimJahey]

the Reality is there are a million different moving pieces on both teams. The last 3 weeks the guys we have playing were much better than the guys our opponents had playing. Regardless of injuries we should be happy and celebrate that.... on the other hand lets noth start the parade route just yet because I'm having a hard time seeing our boys intercept Trevor Harris or BLM 5 times....

[blitzmore]

40 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Of course I look at both sides of the coin, but I understand where you don't see it that way. 

Unfounded negativity would be bad thing, but negativity founded in facts isn't IMO and I don't consider it negative to look at how we got where we are anyway.

It would be much better to actually discuss the issues rather than focusing on the perceived level of their negativity, but that's not the way it works around here. 

Discuss what? We won! How we won is no longer relevant. It's on to the next game making whatever adjustments are necessary!

[Atomic]

3 minutes ago, blitzmore said:

Discuss what? We won! How we won is no longer relevant. It's on to the next game making whatever adjustments are necessary!

If you don't want to discuss it you don't have to.  No need to shout down those who do want to.

[blitzmore]

Shout down? not even close...you and Burgess can discuss all you want...anyone else as well...I no longer see the point in this thread.

[HardCoreBlue]

24 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You are so blind you actually think you are objective, that's why you don't realize you're just being negative. 

 

As I said, the number of people around here who are truly objective on any fan site is so small. Everyone has their own biases and their own slant on things. 

Just to be technical, human behavioral science tells us being 100% objective can't be done. Unless of course a baby coming out of the womb is asked for their opinion.  

[TBURGESS]

27 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You are so blind you actually think you are objective, that's why you don't realize you're just being negative. 

 

As I said, the number of people around here who are truly objective on any fan site is so small. Everyone has their own biases and their own slant on things. 

You fail acknowledge, or maybe to realize, is objectively speaking, the Bombers have been a horrible team for the last 4+ years and the first 5 games of this season. The perceived negativity is therefore a fair and reasoned response to that environment we've been in.

[17to85]

36 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You fail acknowledge, or maybe to realize, is objectively speaking, the Bombers have been a horrible team for the last 4+ years and the first 5 games of this season. The perceived negativity is therefore a fair and reasoned response to that environment we've been in.

No that is using past poor results to justify a negative view point. Thus proving exactly what I am saying. 

[Tracker]

59 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Just to be technical, human behavioral science tells us being 100% objective can't be done. Unless of course a baby coming out of the womb is asked for their opinion.  

Unless, of course, you believe in reincarnation. Besides, communication for a newborn beyond crying and pooping is an issue.

[TBURGESS]

12 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

No that is using past poor results to justify a negative view point. Thus proving exactly what I am saying. 

No it's using the facts to justify the viewpoint. 

[sweep the leg]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Have the Bomber played better of late with their backups in? You bet they have. Have they done it against backup QB's, sub .500 teams and got bunches of turnovers? You bet they have. Them's the facts, but some folks only want to discuss the positive and call anyone who looks at both sides of the coin negative, like that's something bad. 

Maybe I missed an earlier explanation, but why are turnovers being lumped in with bad teams and backup qbs? Would saying, "we only won b/c we scored a lot of touchdowns" make about as much sense?

 

[HardCoreBlue]

24 minutes ago, tracker said:

Unless, of course, you believe in reincarnation. Besides, communication for a newborn beyond crying and pooping is an issue.

Actually displaying bias comes in non-verbal ways quite early in life as well. Okay, I'll stop.

[TBURGESS]

9 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Maybe I missed an earlier explanation, but why are turnovers being lumped in with bad teams and backup qbs? Would saying, "we only won b/c we scored a lot of touchdowns" make about as much sense?

I'm have trouble figuring out the point you're trying to make. Do you think that beating the other teams in the turnover race by 4 or 5 a game is sustainable or that every turnover was simply a great play by our defense that had nothing to do with anything their offense did?

[sweep the leg]

7 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm have trouble figuring out the point you're trying to make. Do you think that beating the other teams in the turnover race by 4 or 5 a game is sustainable or that every turnover was simply a great play by our defense that had nothing to do with anything their offense did?

We didn't win the turnover battle in the Edmonton game by four or five. We won the other two games with large turnovers discrepancies by blowout scores, suggesting we didn't need all of those turnovers to win. The last few were just piling on.

Winning the turnover battle in each game is sustainable, though not by such a large margin. I don't think we have to win it by four or five to be successful. As to your second question, enough of them came from good plays by our defense that I think we can win the turnover battle on most nights, especially when our offense has been as careful with the ball as it has been lately.

[sweep the leg]

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

 

It's also similar to the people saying that all the replacements are playing better than the starters.  Well, let's see CJ Roberts, Travis Bond, Manase Foketi and Taylor Loffler going up against Calgary, BC and Ottawa before we make any grand proclamations, maybe?

I don't think anybody is suggesting CJ Roberts is better than either Adams or Randle.

[Atomic]

15 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I don't think anybody is suggesting CJ Roberts is better than either Adams or Randle.

Maybe you aren't, but there have been several posts lately like this one:

Just my 2 cents. It gas been mentioned briefly here and I agree totally MOS is stubborn so that becomes a hindrance. Example: the entire secondary all rookies and they outplay the starters. Yes he will have an issue going forward but hopefully he will but wisdom ahead of stubbornness,  not loyalty, when this decision comes up.

[Y2C]

49 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm have trouble figuring out the point you're trying to make. Do you think that beating the other teams in the turnover race by 4 or 5 a game is sustainable or that every turnover was simply a great play by our defense that had nothing to do with anything their offense did?

Winnipeg comfortably leads the league in takeaways. Sure, it would be damn near impossible to keep going at this clip, but the fact the team is causing turnovers is no accident.

And let's keep in mind that the "backup" QBs we've feasted on are a mere 4-1 when playing opponents other than the Blue.