Bombers at Lions WSF GDT

[SpeedFlex27]

49 minutes ago, Goalie said:

The game didn't come down to 1 play tho. Our D was shredded. Our O did eff all the entire 2nd half. 

Ultimately it DID come down to one call irrespective of the others. It was a gutless call. The season came down to an impossible FG attempt or 4 measly yards. I am having a hard time accepting the way our season was lost by a panicked O'Shea. If our O couldn't have got the yards I'd be happier to lose that way than the way we did today.  At least we'd have tried.

[Captain Blue]

Crappy way to lose. I would have gone for the third down gamble personally.

All in all, these three BC games were very close and all could have gone either way. 

The Bombers had a really solid season. Its been a long time since the arrow was pointing up for this team. Seriously, when was the last time we thought this team was going in the right direction? Not since LaPolice was head coach and even that was brief.

We're on the right track, in my opinion. This loss hurts like crazy but I take solace in the fact we're on the upswing.

[Tracker]

30 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Let people react. We've earned it. It will go away after a few days.

I don't think the anger will subside much over the next while. We've been here too many times, and this one really chafes because we have the horses to do better. The problems have been there  off and on all season but never really fixed; the "bend, then break" defense has not been able to adapt very well, our linebacking is very suspect, the D-line did not get good pressure on the opposing QB consistently, and we have had too many stretches where the offence was AWOL.  I had reservations about LaPolice but he has redeemed himself in my eyes, but O'Shea and Hall have not. The O-line is solid, Nichols is good enough, at least for now, and the running game and receivers are good enough, but we still need a top-flight Canuck receiver.

[bustamente]

In the end the Bombers gave up a relatively big lead if there is one in the CFL with a team that has a very average offence and a opportunistic denfence, our offence couldn't do anything in the 2nd half and our d couldn't stop long runs and open receivers. Bombers have some holes to fill and hopefully management see's what we need in terms of players and maybe even coaches. Still a good year considering the start and remember we are still better than the Riders. 

[Dascow]

Going for a 61 yard field goal was really dumb. Really really dumb.

[do or die]

We scored enough points to win.   D did not let us.   Awful.

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Reactionary post. What if we went for it and got stopped? It's not about 1 Damn play. It's about playing a full 60 and we didn't.  We lost because BC bent our Soft D Over all game long 

Then it got stopped. I'd have accepted it. At least we were doing the logical thing trying to win. There were 36 seconds, not 6 seconds left. The FG attempt was a stupid call.

[Mark H.]

The D has been giving up huge chunks of yardage all year - today they gave them up when it really counted. The O goes 2 and out in critical situations - they did that again today. A 61 yard field goal attempt - is indefensible

[WBBFanWest]

20 minutes ago, tracker said:

I don't think the anger will subside much over the next while. We've been here too many times, and this one really chafes because we have the horses to do better. The problems have been there  off and on all season but never really fixed; the "bend, then break" defense has not been able to adapt very well, our linebacking is very suspect, the D-line did not get good pressure on the opposing QB consistently, and we have had too many stretches where the offence was AWOL.  I had reservations about LaPolice but he has redeemed himself in my eyes, but O'Shea and Hall have not. The O-line is solid, Nichols is good enough, at least for now, and the running game and receivers are good enough, but we still need a top-flight Canuck receiver.

Not lately we haven't, and that's sort of the point.  We have come a long way in one year, and while winning the whole thing would have been nice, it's not all that realistic this year.

Edited November 14, 2016 by WBBFanWest

[Dragon37]

18 minutes ago, Captain Blue said:

Crappy way to lose. I would have gone for the third down gamble personally.

All in all, these three BC games were very close and all could have gone either way. 

The Bombers had a really solid season. Its been a long time since the arrow was pointing up for this team. Seriously, when was the last time we thought this team was going in the right direction? Not since LaPolice was head coach and even that was brief.

We're on the right track, in my opinion. This loss hurts like crazy but I take solace in the fact we're on the upswing.

When they went to the GC in 2011 they did it despite having a brutal second half of the season and terrible corners. Really terrible. Now I think we have much better players, we may need a few more, but not always the best game plan. So in all I think we are actually in a much better condition than the end of 2011 where a GC appearance masked some considerable shortcomings.

 

 

[Tracker]

6 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Not lately we haven't, and that's sort of the point.  We have come a long way in one year, and while winning the whole thing would have been nice, it's not all that realistic this year.

I was referring to the past dozen years or so.

[WBBFanWest]

1 minute ago, tracker said:

I was referring to the past dozen years or so.

Sort of pointless referring to teams that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current regime, but hey, that's just me. 

[kelownabomberfan]

1983 

Next year 1984

[Mr. Perfect]

44 minutes ago, J5V said:

Guys, yes the D was soft and yes the O needed to do more in the second half so Lapo and Hall deserve some criticism, but does anyone here really think the biggest problem wasn't the decision to, with 30 seconds left, kick a 60 yard FG instead of go for it on 3rd and four? I mean, how can anyone that has played this game professionally and been a HC for 3 full years really think his odds are better kicking a 60 yard FG than getting 4 yards? Now I'm certain that there is some kind of logic processing problem with O'Shea and it's not just stubbornness. I can't think of another HC in the league that would have thought a 60 yard FG was a better gamble than picking up 4 yards. No professional HC in the CFL would have made that decision, except ours, and that is so very embarrassing.

Personally I have had enough of the O'Shea show in Winnipeg. I am no longer willing to make an emotional investment in this team just to have an idiot like O'Shea ruin it for me.

I want to disagree and say this is an irrational perspective but I just can't. How anyone, nevermind a professional coach could think that was the right decision in that situation is beyond me.

[deepsixemtoboyd]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

What's hall's contract? His D isn't good enough. Can't fire MOS for one play but that was as stupid as any play call ever. 

Super well-said. Agreed that MOS has earned another contract (but I'd say two years, not three). But boy, that said, if it ever WAS possible to blow your new contract with one incredibly bone-headed call - as stupid as any play call ever IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL - this would be the way to do it.

[Tracker]

4 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Super well-said. Agreed that MOS has earned another contract (but I'd say two years, not three). But boy, that said, if it ever WAS possible to blow your new contract with one incredibly bone-headed call - as stupid as any play call ever IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL - this would be the way to do it.

Yup. O'Shea's decision cannot be attributed to his being a rookie head coach. When you add this to his stubbornness about playing Willy over and over this year when it was obvious to all and sundry that Willy just didn't have it any more and the whole team (except O'Shea) knew it, then O'Shea's judgment comes very much into question.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tracker

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

It is typical of bomber games where we have a lead and need to protect it.... the offence can't move the ball let alone take time off the clock and the defence disappears..... open receivers all over the place and no bomber in site.... really frustrating to watch the game was theirs if they could cover and apply pressure......OC  and DC and HC can wear this one

Went away from Harris in the second half and stopped running the ball, it's pretty clear that keeping Harris involved through 4 Q's should be an important part of the game plan.

[deepsixemtoboyd]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Reactionary post. What if we went for it and got stopped? It's not about 1 Damn play. It's about playing a full 60 and we didn't.  We lost because BC bent our Soft D Over all game long 

Agreed it's not about one play. We lost that game for many reasons, most of them having to do with a defense that has been shredded for major yards WAY too many time this year. BUT...that doesn't mean that it's "reactionary" to point out that 1 play involved ridiculous and faulty reasoning by our coach. Look, the fact is we don't know if we would have converted on 3rd and 4, but we do reliably know that the odds of our kicker making a 61-yarder (when he has not done that all year and said himself his outside range is 57) are extremely low. What you look for from your coach is to weigh the odds and make a rational decision that increases your odds of winning. MOS absolutely failed to do that at the end of the game, therefore the "one play" is absolutely worth mentioning. Put it this way: if MOS gambles on third and 4 and we lose, no one is blaming any aspect of this on him. It's all on the D, firstly, and then, secondly, about the O not showing up in the second half. But because he did what he did, his call becomes the third factor that must be discussed.

[Dragon37]

bad call, yes, but he has not been the first to make such a choice. I recall someone trying the same type of kick against the Bombers either this season or last. MOS will have to live with the choice for a year now and he rarely makes the same silly decisions twice.

[blueandgoldguy]

I took a look at the numbers and the Bomber offense had 185 yards in the second half (not including yardage from penalties).  BC's offense gained over 220 yards in offense in the second half (again, not including yards gained on penalties).  Bomber offense came away with a measly 2 field goals in the second half which is simply not good enough.  BC, on the other hand, had 3 tds in the second half.  Three of them came on their last 4 possessions.  

 

The Bomber offense deserves criticism for the poor second half as 2 field goal with perfect conditions inside a dome stadium is less than adequate.  We have seen this story too often from Nichols with his inability to generate TDs inside the opponent's 30 yard line on a regular basis.  Happened again today.  I don't think he is the quarterback to lead us to a Grey Cup unless we have a fantastic D and an amazing run game (see 1990).  He is probably the worst starter in the West and the Bombers would need other areas of the team to be better than those of the 4 other western teams to compensate for the gap - a tall, if not, impossible task.

With that said, the majority of the blame lies with the defense.  When the Bombers needed some stops in the second half, the D failed time and time again.  3 TDs in BC's last 4 possessions is an absolute joke.  Similar story for much of the season - over 500 yards total offense given up, 31 first downs by BC  - saw this happen quite a bit this season, but this time we did not get 4 or 5 turnovers to compensate.  

 

Not sure if it's the front 4 and a couple of the linebackers or if it's Richie Hall's schemes.  Perhaps both?  One thing is for sure, there need's to be some drastic changes because the Bombers can't count on a similar turnover ratio for next season.

As for O'Shea, that was a dumb move at the end and probably worse than any single coaching decision I ever recall Paul Lapolice making in his tenure as head coach.  Think about it - what has a higher chance of success?  A gamble on third and 4 (remember the team did have over 180 yards on offense and 10 First downs in the second half so they did actually did move the ball) with plenty of time on the clock

OR

a 61-yard field goal in a dome which has never been successfully completed in CFL history.

 

A coach should play the odds and not a hunch.  O'Shea failed in this situation.  Hopefully he actually learns something from this and stops with the stubborness.

Edited November 14, 2016 by blueandgoldguy

[blueandgoldguy]

39 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Went away from Harris in the second half and stopped running the ball, it's pretty clear that keeping Harris involved through 4 Q's should be an important part of the game plan.

They did run it a few times and he only had one gain over 3 yards in the second half.  It's not like Harris would have busted several for 10+ yards if the Bombers had given him 5 extra carries.  Besides they used him in the pass game.

Edited November 14, 2016 by blueandgoldguy

[blueandgoldguy]

20 minutes ago, Dragon37 said:

bad call, yes, but he has not been the first to make such a choice. I recall someone trying the same type of kick against the Bombers either this season or last. MOS will have to live with the choice for a year now and he rarely makes the same silly decisions twice.

Was that attempt earlier in the year made with 36 seconds on the clock and time for 3 more plays?  Because if it was made with less than 7-8 seconds left and/or an incredibly long yardage to get the first down, it is of little relevance to the  terrible decision O'Shea made.

Edited November 14, 2016 by blueandgoldguy

[Dragon37]

5 minutes ago, blueandgoldguy said:

I took a look at the numbers and the Bomber offense had 185 yards in the second half (not including yardage from penalties).  BC's offense gained over 220 yards in offense in the second half (again, not including yards gained on penalties).  Bomber offense came away with a measly 2 field goals in the second half which is simply not good enough.  BC, on the other hand, had 3 tds in the second half.  Three of them came on their last 4 possessions.  

 

The Bomber offense deserves criticism for the poor second half as 2 field goal with perfect conditions inside a dome stadium.  We have seen this story too often from Nichols with his inability to generate TDs inside the opponent's 30 yard line on a regular basis.  Happened again today.  I don't think he is the quarterback to lead us to a Grey Cup unless we have a fantastic D and an amazing run game (see 1990).  He is probably the worst starter in the West and the Bombers would need other areas of the team to be better than those of the 4 other western teams to compensate for the gap - a tall, if not, impossible task.

With that said, the majority of the blame lies with the defense.  When the Bombers needed some stops in the second half, the D failed time and time again.  3 TDs in BC's last 4 possessions is an absolute joke.  Similar story for much of the season - over 500 yards total offense given up, 31 first downs by BC  - saw this happen quite a bit this season, but this time we did not get 4 or 5 turnovers to compensate.  

 

Not sure if it's the front 4 and a couple of the linebackers or if it's Richie Hall's schemes.  Perhaps both?  One thing is for sure, there need's to be some drastic changes because the Bombers can't count on a similar turnover ratio for next season.

As for O'Shea, that was a dumb move at the end and probably worse than any single coaching decision I ever recall Paul Lapolice making in his tenure as head coach.  Think about it - what has a higher chance of success?  A gamble on third and 4 (remember the team did have over 180 yards on offense and 10 First downs in the second half so they did actually did move the ball) with plenty of time on the clock

OR

a 61-yard field goal in a dome which has never been successfully completed in CFL history.

 

A coach should play the odds and not a hunch.  O'Shea failed in this situation.  Hopefully he actually learns something from this and stops with the stubborness.

Like I said it was both side of the ball that did not do enough in the second half. Trying the FG was stupid but it never should have come to having to choose. That is not letting off the coaches. If both sides of the ball fail to do their jobs then that can definitely be hung on the coaches. The TEAM was simply not good enough in the second half.

[Super Duper Negatron]

I...I'm still livid. The worst part is I would love to be pissed at the D right now, but that final call won't let me. I can't even...

Bah!

[Old Bomber Fan]

I agree with you j5v but the game wasn't lost on just that play... what about the wide open receivers that moved the ball downfield at ease.... what about the poor gap coverage to stop the run.... and of course what about our run game... it was missing in the second half. And what about the 3 man rush with BC on their 7 yd line that resulted that pass interference call and mov d the ball halfway down the field? Poor coaching decisions and you are right ultimately it falls to MOS. Can't call him a rookie anymore