GDT: Toronto @ Winnipeg

[Blueandgold]

2 hours ago, Rich said:

It is the game plan and the formula they've been using to win.   Play low risk (and mistake free) on offence and relying on the defence to win the turnover battle.

Would be nice to see a higher octane offence, but I thought the O did a much better job in the 2nd half against Toronto.

What was it, three touchdowns on the last three real drives of the game? No complaints about the offense on Saturday here, yes they struggled in the first half but they still put up more than enough points to get us a win.

[Rich]

9 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

What was it, three touchdowns on the last three real drives of the game? No complaints about the offense on Saturday here, yes they struggled in the first half but they still put up more than enough points to get us a win.

Yep.  Thats been my biggest complaint, lack of finish and settling for field goals.  There were 3 TD drives in the 2nd half that started at Toronto 51, Winnipeg 48 and Winnipeg 31.  

Nice to see the O finally convert field position into TDs, then drive the length of the field to cap it all off and put the game well out of reach.

That, and well I haven't gone back to confirm, it seems to me this was the first game in the winning streak where we really had to come back from behind.    Being down 10 points in the 3rd quarter and coming back with 27 unanswered points.  Those are the hallmarks you look for.

[Mike]

Good to see us do a couple things winning teams need to do.

Coming from behind ... being effective in the red zone ... overcoming adversity. I like it.

[JuranBoldenRules]

Odd how similar both our games vs Toronto ended up.

[Fan Boy]

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Odd how similar both our games vs Toronto ended up.

Were they similar? there were plenty of picks in the other game. This one not so much. 

[Mr Dee]

And much less gore..

[bearpants]

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Odd how similar both our games vs Toronto ended up.

 

38 minutes ago, Fan Boy said:

Were they similar? there were plenty of picks in the other game. This one not so much. 

slow first half... took it to them in the second... I wouldn't say they were identical or anything but they had a similar feel....

[Tracker]

41 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

And much less gore..

Actually, only the Lions have Gore every game.

[Mr Dee]

7 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

And much less gore..

 

7 hours ago, tracker said:

Actually, only the Lions have Gore every game.

Well, the Bombers, this time, were in a no Kil zone..

[ddanger]

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎18 at 6:32 PM, tracker said:

Yes, but they really looked terrible in the first half, and a good deal of the third quarter.

The offence was definitely terrible in the first half.....lots of consternation amongst the sth in my section. And rightfully so. We can't win kicking field goals, and Nicholls threw a couple of passes that we no where near his targets. And Nicholls seemed to be losing his mind a few times, was very impressed with Kevin Glenn talking to him and calming him down.

[Atomic]

"We can't win kicking field goals"

*On a 7-game win streak while kicking the most field goals in the league

[tacklewasher]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

"We can't win kicking field goals"

*On a 7-game win streak while kicking the most field goals in the league

How about "we won't beat Calgary kicking field goals"?

We need to punch it in to beat them.

[Fan Boy]

24 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

How about "we won't beat Calgary kicking field goals"?

We need to punch it in to beat them.

We need to score more points than them to win. There are many permutations of special teams, defence and offence that end in this result. We have seen many of these permutations this season. Calgary is the best team without doubt but not unbeatable. 

[mbrg]

2 hours ago, ddanger said:

The offence was definitely terrible in the first half.....lots of consternation amongst the sth in my section. And rightfully so. We can't win kicking field goals, and Nicholls threw a couple of passes that we no where near his targets. And Nicholls seemed to be losing his mind a few times, was very impressed with Kevin Glenn talking to him and calming him down.

I thought the turning point in the offensive tempo was the penalty-negated interception he threw.  Another passive 4 yard pass on second and ten (I think).  Kind of like he had a realization that the dink and dunk passing can still result in turnovers, so screw it, let's force the issue.  Next play was 15ish yards over the middle, followed by the 20ish yard pass into the endzone for the TD.

After that, he was far more aggressive in his pass selection.  Before, it looked like the game was going to be another nail-biter resulting from a sputtering offence.

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, tacklewasher said:

How about "we won't beat Calgary kicking field goals"?

We need to punch it in to beat them.

I would agree that we can't score ONLY field goals if we want to beat Calgary.  Fortunately the offence has scored at least one TD in every game since Nichols took over.  Do we need to score a touchdown on every drive?  No.  Do we need to score more touchdowns than field goals?  Also, no.  People ***** about the conservative style of offence but I don't see anyone complaining about them never turning the ball over.  Two sides of the same coin.

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, tacklewasher said:

How about "we won't beat Calgary kicking field goals"?

We need to punch it in to beat them.

Yup. Field goals alone ain't gonna do it.

Edited September 22, 2016 by tracker

[HardCoreBlue]

46 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I would agree that we can't score ONLY field goals if we want to beat Calgary.  Fortunately the offence has scored at least one TD in every game since Nichols took over.  Do we need to score a touchdown on every drive?  No.  Do we need to score more touchdowns than field goals?  Also, no.  People ***** about the conservative style of offence but I don't see anyone complaining about them never turning the ball over.  Two sides of the same coin.

Hey I'd like more touchdowns as well but with Nichols we seem to get a well managed game that, to date, requires a fair amount of field goal attempts.

When it comes down to it, it's great that we have a placekicker that gives us that option starting from 58 yards out.   

Edited September 22, 2016 by HardCoreBlue

[Atomic]

7 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Hey I'd like more touchdowns as well but with Nichols we seem to get a well managed game that, to date, requires a fair amount of field goal attempts.

When it comes down to it, it's great that we have a placekicker that gives us that option starting from 58 yards out.   

Certainly... I'd like to see more touchdowns too... who wouldn't?  But if the choice is 7 field goals, 1 TD, and no turnovers versus 3 TDs, 2 field goals, and 3 turnovers... I know which one I'm taking.

[HardCoreBlue]

3 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Certainly... I'd like to see more touchdowns too... who wouldn't?  But if the choice is 7 field goals, 1 TD, and no turnovers versus 3 TDs, 2 field goals, and 3 turnovers... I know which one I'm taking.

Yup.

[Guest J5V]

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

I would agree that we can't score ONLY field goals if we want to beat Calgary.  Fortunately the offence has scored at least one TD in every game since Nichols took over.  Do we need to score a touchdown on every drive?  No.  Do we need to score more touchdowns than field goals?  Also, no.  People ***** about the conservative style of offence but I don't see anyone complaining about them never turning the ball over.  Two sides of the same coin.

Interesting stats to support your argument. While BLM has passed for 22 TDs to Nichols' 8, BLM has also thrown 8 INTs to Nichols' 1. BLM has also fumbled twice losing 1 while Nichols has not fumbled at all.

It's also worth mentioning that BLM has thrown for more than double the yardage that Nichols has.

Points scored? Cgy 405, Wpg 302. So you can't fault Cgy for taking those risks, it has resulted in 103 more points being scored. 

A very interesting dichotomy of risk/reward approaches to offense.

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, J5V said:

Interesting stats to support your argument. While BLM has passed for 22 TDs to Nichols' 8, BLM has also thrown 8 INTs to Nichols' 1. BLM has also fumbled twice losing 1 while Nichols has not fumbled at all.

It's also worth mentioning that BLM has thrown for more than double the yardage that Nichols has.

Points scored? Cgy 405, Wpg 302. So you can't fault Cgy for taking those risks, it has resulted in 103 more points being scored. 

A very interesting dichotomy of risk/reward approaches to offense.

You can't be serious.  Nichols is not BLM.  You work with what you've got, and we don't got the talent for that. 

[Guest J5V]

25 minutes ago, Atomic said:

You can't be serious.  Nichols is not BLM.  You work with what you've got, and we don't got the talent for that. 

Which is why I agreed with you. If Nichols was throwing pics and fumbling the ball we'd be toast. 

[Tracker]

16 minutes ago, J5V said:

Which is why I agreed with you. If Nichols was throwing pics and fumbling the ball we'd be toast. 

Worse. We'd be the Riders.

[Guest J5V]

9 minutes ago, tracker said:

Worse. We'd be the Riders.