Is It Real?

[Atomic]

4 minutes ago, J5V said:

I guess that's why we have to give the GM and scouting staff 3 years to show their stuff. 

Getting rid of a GM after anything less than 3 years would be insane, barring some sort of massive failure ala Kelly or Reinebold.

[do or die]

....We would know....

[17to85]

You are never as good as you think during win streaks and never as bad as you think during losing streaks... so where does that put the Bombers? Probably right around .500 actually. 

I still say they're a team that has their performance revolve around momentum. When they have it it's all fun and games but when they lose it they struggle to get it back. We'll win some fun games like we have lately and lose some ugly games like they did first game vs. the stamps. 

[Jpan85]

I want to see how they react to a being in a tight game in the forth quarter that will tell you a lot if they have truly turned the corner.

[TBURGESS]

6 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

You opened the door to using back up QBs, as if we should apologize, or feel the 'reality' of the situation. But I tell you that is the reality of the situation, at any time. Teams have to use backups..all the time. We have, for years. Your need to keep pointing out the "but, but but" in all things good for the Bombers is your way of simply negatizing any Bomber run for ten yards. And why? To simply point out the facts? 

As Winnie would say...oh bother.

I never once said or implied that we should apologize. I was simply trying to discuss whether we are for real or not. Kinda the whole point of this thread. Looking at who we beat and who they had at QB is part of that process. I didn't use 'but' in my post at all. I didn't negate any 10 yard runs or anything else for that matter. Not sure what you're reading, but (there's one) it's simply not there.

[Fatty Liver]

7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

You are never as good as you think during win streaks and never as bad as you think during losing streaks... so where does that put the Bombers? Probably right around .500 actually. 

I still say they're a team that has their performance revolve around momentum. When they have it it's all fun and games but when they lose it they struggle to get it back. We'll win some fun games like we have lately and lose some ugly games like they did first game vs. the stamps. 

I suspect this as well, some times a team with a capable QB will take momentum and run away with it.  The Bombers have been pretty fortunate lately in that opponents have been so accommodating with turnovers and no QB has been able to mount a serious challenge.

[LimJahey]

Teams have been able to move the ball against us which is the most concerning part, playing against some young qbs has really helped us win the turnover battle. Still afraid to play against BLM, and Mike Reilly though.

[bearpants]

18 hours ago, holoman said:

Killing a guy in self defence or in cold blooded murder doesn't change the fact you killed a guy.  Just saying

It actually does in court... especially if you have a good lawyer 

[bearpants]

16 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

What the heck do you think that has to do with the conversation? I never suggested that we give back our wins. 

Arguing that we are playing our backup QB when anyone whose been watching the Bombers knows that Nichols is our starting QB is just playing silly buggers. Willy was our starting QB due and he played himself out of it. Nichols took the job by the end of his first game and has been our starter ever since.

I think this is the main point (at least this is what I think the argument is)... you've said in the past a win is a win and a loss is a loss and you don't care how they happened... but that is not how you actually react...

when we lose you say we lost, who cares if it was close....

but now that we've got some wins you say "yeah well we played their back up QBs and the defense had a more than sustainable amount of turnovers and the opponent made so many mistakes, etc, etc"...

Ultimately it is inconsistency in your posts that is likely what irks people... not a need to only discuss the good vs discuss only the bad... I have yet to see one poster on this site claim THE TURN AROUND IS COMPLETE AND WE ARE NOW GREY CUP FAVOURITES!!... but you want to paint any cautious optimism with that brush because it helps to further your point...

The wins vs Tor, Hamilton and Edmonton were not perfect... but they were the best Bombers football we've seen since early 2011... so if that's not reason for some optimism... I don't know what is! 

PS - I'm not sure that post I quoted was the best one to make this point... but you understand what I'm saying...

[TBURGESS]

2 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I think this is the main point (at least this is what I think the argument is)... you've said in the past a win is a win and a loss is a loss and you don't care how they happened... but that is not how you actually react...

when we lose you say we lost, who cares if it was close....

but now that we've got some wins you say "yeah well we played their back up QBs and the defense had a more than sustainable amount of turnovers and the opponent made so many mistakes, etc, etc"...

Ultimately it is inconsistency in your posts that is likely what irks people... not a need to only discuss the good vs discuss only the bad... I have yet to see one poster on this site claim THE TURN AROUND IS COMPLETE AND WE ARE NOW GREY CUP FAVOURITES!!... but you want to paint any cautious optimism with that brush because it helps to further your point...

The wins vs Tor, Hamilton and Edmonton were not perfect... but they were the best Bombers football we've seen since early 2011... so if that's not reason for some optimism... I don't know what is! 

PS - I'm not sure that post I quoted was the best one to make this point... but you understand what I'm saying...

I don't care if it was a close loss or a close win. Wins are the stat that matters most. In fact wins are the only stat that really matters.  I've never said that I don't care how wins or losses happen tho. 

Folks love to go on and on about 'if we'd just done "A" we would have won" or "If the refs hadn't screwed us" we would have won or "If these 3 or 4 plays had just gone the other way" we would have won. I don't buy that any more than I buy "Them playing their backup QB doesn't matter" or "The number of turnovers didn't make the difference" or "It doesn't matter that we played below .500 teams". It's all talking about what happened in the game. None of it changes the fact that we won or we lost.

I am cautiously optimistic. I expect us to win 3 out of the next 4 games to go 7-5, because we're better than Regina and Montreal and should be competitive with Toronto even with Ray. I expect us to win 1 or 2 of the last 6 games to end up with 8 or 9 wins because 5 of those 6 games are against the top 3 teams in the league.

[do or die]

We are 4-4.....don't hear any parade, in the background.   But, Bombers have played some pretty good football, in all three phases.....and when it comes to the 6-8 key plays in any game - have been the team making them.    Also like the fact, that as far as the physical play - we are now the ones who knock.....

Some folks point to Nichols stats and are not that impressed.   Well, what good did Willy's "numbers" do us?   Confidence is a two-edged sword...and is very contagious...

Bombers have been finally finding ways to win.  The deal, going forward... is finding other ways, when we don't force a zillion turnovers, or have to come from behind late, etc...

 

 

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

I don't care if it was a close loss or a close win. Wins are the stat that matters most. In fact wins are the only stat that really matters.  I've never said that I don't care how wins or losses happen tho. 

Folks love to go on and on about 'if we'd just done "A" we would have won" or "If the refs hadn't screwed us" we would have won or "If these 3 or 4 plays had just gone the other way" we would have won. I don't buy that any more than I buy "Them playing their backup QB doesn't matter" or "The number of turnovers didn't make the difference" or "It doesn't matter that we played below .500 teams". It's all talking about what happened in the game. None of it changes the fact that we won or we lost.

I am cautiously optimistic. I expect us to win 3 out of the next 4 games to go 7-5, because we're better than Regina and Montreal and should be competitive with Toronto even with Ray. I expect us to win 1 or 2 of the last 6 games to end up with 8 or 9 wins because 5 of those 6 games are against the top 3 teams in the league.

I am expecting to split both the home-and-away series with BC and Ottawa.  Playing in Calgary is a write-off and we should win at home against Edmonton.  3-3 in the last six seems more likely to me.  I'm also expecting 2-2 over the next four, for a 9-9 finish.  This really does look like a .500 team at this point.

[Fatty Liver]

2 hours ago, LimJahey said:

Teams have been able to move the ball against us which is the most concerning part, playing against some young qbs has really helped us win the turnover battle. Still afraid to play against BLM, and Mike Reilly though.

They've already beaten Reilly once, almost twice. 

I think the Esks. are a team that will regain some of their form in the second half of the season and become a much tougher opponent going down the stretch,

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Folks love to go on and on about 'if we'd just done "A" we would have won" or "If the refs hadn't screwed us" we would have won or "If these 3 or 4 plays had just gone the other way" we would have won. I don't buy that any more than I buy "Them playing their backup QB doesn't matter" or "The number of turnovers didn't make the difference" or "It doesn't matter that we played below .500 teams". It's all talking about what happened in the game. None of it changes the fact that we won or we lost.

See here's the thing though.. unless I'm reading  this wrong... you're essentially saying I don't care if we "almost won" when we lost but I do care if we "almost lost" when we won.... maybe "almost lost" isn't the right saying but you're clearly making excuses for the teams we beat... that's where I see the inconsistency...

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

10 minutes ago, bearpants said:

See here's the thing though.. unless I'm reading  this wrong... you're essentially saying I don't care if we "almost won" when we lost but I do care if we "almost lost" when we won.... maybe "almost lost" isn't the right saying but you're clearly making excuses for the teams we beat... that's where I see the inconsistency...

Good Lord- it's like you reached into my brain and pulled that out. Thank you for giving my grey matter a voice!

[LimJahey]

24 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

They've already beaten Reilly once, almost twice. 

I think the Esks. are a team that will regain some of their form in the second half of the season and become a much tougher opponent going down the stretch,

My thoughts exactly, i feel like their offence isnt firing on all cylinders but their defence has been atrocious all year

[TBURGESS]

17 minutes ago, bearpants said:

See here's the thing though.. unless I'm reading  this wrong... you're essentially saying I don't care if we "almost won" when we lost but I do care if we "almost lost" when we won.... maybe "almost lost" isn't the right saying but you're clearly making excuses for the teams we beat... that's where I see the inconsistency...

Your'e half right. I don't care when we almost win because close doesn't count in the standings, but I'm not 'clearly making excuses for teams we beat' and we haven't "almost lost" either of the last 2 games. I'm simply looking at why we won and that includes the backup QB, the turnovers and the sub .500 teams we've played as well as the way our team played. 

[17to85]

Some people are just negative. 

But here's the thing, the Bombers defense has ramped it up lately. The secondary is playing better compared to early in the year, the DL is getting a lot more pressure, the LBs have been pretty solid the whole way through but the entire D is bringing some pressure to opposing offenses and so far they're forcing mistakes out of them and that makes it a lot easier on everyone. Then you couple that with the offense being able to capitalize on that and boom, 3 straight wins. Doesn't matter who was in the lineup for the other team, you can only play the team that lines up against you and last 3 weeks it's been passing grades for the Bombers all around. 

[TBURGESS]

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. 

[LimJahey]

Just now, 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. 

why do you keep calling our guys backups? Out of the guys who came in i can only think of a few receivers and a couple olinemen who will replace the "backups". 

[Atomic]

I really think that TBURGESS is taking a lot of unnecessary flak here.  The question was "Is it real?"  To me, answering that question requires going beyond "a win is a win."  It is undeniable that the team is playing better, that's obvious from the 3 game winning streak.  But where do the Bombers stack up against the contenders like BC, Ottawa and Calgary?  And to a lesser extent Hamilton and Toronto with Collaros and Ray, respectively.  To answer that, you have to take a deeper dive into each game which includes noting the facts that TBURGESS is talking about.

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?

[TBURGESS]

3 minutes ago, LimJahey said:

why do you keep calling our guys backups? Out of the guys who came in i can only think of a few receivers and a couple olinemen who will replace the "backups". 

Nichols, Bond, Loffler, and Denmark are new starters rather than backups. 

When they get healthy, Adams, Randle, Dressler and Smith at a minimum will get their jobs back from their backups.

[LimJahey]

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols, Bond, Loffler, and Denmark are new starters rather than backups. 

When they get healthy, Adams, Randle, Dressler and Smith at a minimum will get their jobs back from their backups.

While i agree, this team has a next man up mentality and we aren't using injuries as an excuse anymore.

[17to85]

41 minutes 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. 

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. 

[Mr Dee]

Quote

But where do the Bombers stack up against the contenders like BC, Ottawa and Calgary?  And to a lesser extent Hamilton and Toronto with Collaros and Ray, respectively.  To answer that, you have to take a deeper dive into each game which includes noting the facts that TBURGESS is talking about.

Yeah, where do we stack up against them?

First of all we had to get to 4-4 after starting 1-4. Every Bomber fan knows how we got there. We played the games against the teams as presented to us. And they played against us according to the team we presented them. Did the opposing teams not look at our lineup and consider, at least partially, that they were facing backups? Those are also the facts. 

Matt Nichols WAS our backup. So was Bond, and Hardrick. So was Loffler and numerous secondary replacements. Those are facts also.

The fact that they may not be backups now is not relevant as to how they were looked at before injuries. The only assigned replacement due to poor play was Nichols over Willy. But can we say that Nichols is the permanent starter? Maybe. With an asterisk.

Is it real? I'm pretty damn sure that Bombers fans won't plunge into the swirling mass of hysteria because we won 3 games in a row. I give the fans more credit that that. 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.