I like Matt Nichols

[White Out]

A lot. This guy still isn't getting the respect he deserves, and I'm not even talking here. TSN, Sportsnet, the papers, Nichols in general seems to still have the game manager tag on him. I have to think some of it comes from our play calling and how stupidly conservative we can get, and that's understandable I guess if your a fan of another team and just catch a quarter or two. But for full time analysts and our own fans, this guy isn't Matt Dunigan but he sure as hell isn't Garza or Dinwiddie. 

Nichols finished last night with a QB rating of over 120, 4 touchdowns, 300+ yards, and 64% throwing. Yet you would think that he needs to elevate his game if you read some of the posts from the game thread. So yeah, I'm going to make a Matt Nichols bandwagon because after watching a long line of terrible quarterbacks (including the anointed Drew Willy) I like winners. And Nichols is a god damn winner.

 

 

[Fraser]

Great hair  too 

[TBURGESS]

Nichols had a great 20 minutes last night, helped by an INT, a fumble recovered inside their 10 and 2 completely blown coverages. He managed 10 yards and zero first downs in the first quarter. He missed 2 wide open players in the end zone. All this against what most fans consider to be the worst team in the CFL.

[White Out]

5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols had a great 20 minutes last night, helped by an INT, a fumble recovered inside their 10 and 2 completely blown coverages. He managed 10 yards and zero first downs in the first quarter. He missed 2 wide open players in the end zone. All this against what most fans consider to be the worst team in the CFL.

I mean, he did put up 37 points in 4 quarters, but not good enough?

Really?

[JuranBoldenRules]

5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols had a great 20 minutes last night, helped by an INT, a fumble recovered inside their 10 and 2 completely blown coverages. He managed 10 yards and zero first downs in the first quarter. He missed 2 wide open players in the end zone. All this against what most fans consider to be the worst team in the CFL.

Yes, threw for 300 yards in basically a half.  What's going to happen when our offence is actually in rhythm?

[Doublezero]

I am more than happy with Nichols and feel Bombers had no choice but to give him that $400k contract to retain him after the way he stepped in and started winning games for us last year. I feel the coaches and his team-mates have a lot of confidence in Matt Nichols. He put too much zip on the ball early yesterday so JFG couldn't squeeze a high throw with velocity and Dressler couldn't run under another sure TD pass. When he got that out of the way and settled down - he was money. Personally very glad we have Matt Nichols as our starting QB and agree he is very under-rated.

[Guest J5V]

7 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Yes, threw for 300 yards in basically a half.  What's going to happen when our offence is actually in rhythm?

Does an offence ever get in a sustained rhythm under Lapo? Seems as soon as it does, it gets shuts down.

[pigseye]

If not for some first half rust, chitters, whatever, Nichols would have tossed 6 TD's this game. Not too bad for a career 'game manager'.

[TBURGESS]

Nichols should have tossed 6 TD's last night. He missed 2 wide open receivers who were behind the defense.

[johnzo]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols had a great 20 minutes last night, helped by an INT, a fumble recovered inside their 10 and 2 completely blown coverages. He managed 10 yards and zero first downs in the first quarter. He missed 2 wide open players in the end zone. All this against what most fans consider to be the worst team in the CFL.

Suitor put the Denmark endzone miss on Denmark, said he didn't run his route at full speed.

There was also that stretch where the Riders solved our protection and were burying Nichols -- they had 3-4 sacks in a couple of drives.  I think it was around the time that Hardrick got hurt. That cooled Nichols down some.

But yeah, I agree with the OP: Games like the one last night and the Western Final definitely put that game manager tag into serious question.

Edited July 2, 2017 by johnzo

[rebusrankin]

Matt Nichols played well and as others have said, still knocking off rust. Glad we have him.

[TBURGESS]

I'm not saying Nichols stunk or that we'd be better off without him. I'm saying that you can't just ignore his bad play, like the entire first quarter, when you analyze how well he did. 

[Jpan85]

You know what I also saw BLM and Reilly miss a few wide open guys too this weekend.

[Eternal optimist]

Agreed Nichols managed the game well last night. Does anyone know the status of  Jermarcus Hardrick? After he went out due to injury, our O-line didn't seem to play the same - gave up a few sacks etc.

[Taynted_Fayth]

I thought it was very similar to last year,  player for half a game (in this case 2nd and 3rd quarter) and go (maybe a little too) conservative the other 2 quarters.  The biggest difference I saw last night was based on the Oline.  At times it looked like Nichols had enough time to have a drink, scratch his ass and high five Harris. On those plays he looked crisp with his throws and accurate. What happened to our Oline in the 4th quarter is beyond me. 

[Jpan85]

13 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

Agreed Nichols managed the game well last night. Does anyone know the status of  Jermarcus Hardrick? After he went out due to injury, our O-line didn't seem to play the same - gave up a few sacks etc.

He came back in

[Rod Black]

29 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not saying Nichols stunk or that we'd be better off without him. I'm saying that you can't just ignore his bad play, like the entire first quarter, when you analyze how well he did. 

Seems that Mike OShea uses different language. Where you say "Nichols should..." the coach prefers to use "we got things we need to improve on..". Where you say "can't ignore his bad play.". The coach again prefers to use "we got things we need to improve on...". That first quarter needed improvement. However wasn't the opening week being a bye week, NOT foreseen as a risk? The first quarter provided evidence the bye hurt the Blue. Bernie has only lost 3 of 15 games now. When was the last time our squad's qb did that? 

Edited July 2, 2017 by Rod Black
Removed absolutely indecipherable grammar.

[Guest J5V]

6 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I thought it was very similar to last year,  player for half a game (in this case 2nd and 3rd quarter) and go (maybe a little too) conservative the other 2 quarters.  The biggest difference I saw last night was based on the Oline.  At times it looked like Nichols had enough time to have a drink, scratch his ass and high five Harris. On those plays he looked crisp with his throws and accurate. What happened to our Oline in the 4th quarter is beyond me. 

I don't know how many years it's going to take but we have to find a way to play our games from the opening whistle for the next 60 minutes. This team maddeningly open plays in spurts and it's driving me crazy. Not far to go but ...

[TheSource]

1 hour ago, J5V said:

I don't know how many years it's going to take but we have to find a way to play our games from the opening whistle for the next 60 minutes. This team maddeningly open plays in spurts and it's driving me crazy. Not far to go but ...

Agree 100%.

Nichols is not the problem, he is the QB that can take this team to a GC win.

I have seen Bomber teams win a GC with a lot less.

 

Personnel wise, I think they might be closer than I thought.

This team needs to develop a killer instinct and when they do... look out

 

[brett_c_b]

2 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I thought it was very similar to last year,  player for half a game (in this case 2nd and 3rd quarter) and go (maybe a little too) conservative the other 2 quarters.  The biggest difference I saw last night was based on the Oline.  At times it looked like Nichols had enough time to have a drink, scratch his ass and high five Harris. On those plays he looked crisp with his throws and accurate. What happened to our Oline in the 4th quarter is beyond me. 

we're always going to play too conservative. It's been the Lapolice way in every stint has it not. I commented in the chat yesterday in the third quarter it looked like MOS must have tied Lapo up and left him in the locker room because we actually threw the ball downfield. By the 4th quarter classic Lapolice was back unfortunately. 

I could be biased because I've never liked his coaching style, but I believe our wins are in spite of our O-coordinator, not because of his playcalling.

[Mr. Perfect]

Prior to him coming here I was never a huge Nichols fan and overall I'd say I'm still on the fence about him.

However that said, while Lapo's offence can be frustrating at times when he goes conservative, Nichols does a great job of executing it overall. Some quarterbacks fit well in certain schemes. I'd encourage anyone to look at Nichols career stats before coming to Winnipeg. They're very average at best. That said, if I recall correctly his touchdowns to interceptions last season were 19-11. Add to the fact he went 4-1 in those stats last night and you can clearly see there is something in this offence that allows him to be successful.

[coach17]

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Nichols should have tossed 6 TD's last night. He missed 2 wide open receivers who were behind the defense.

The one to Dressler was overthrown for sure, but The other was Denmarks fault, he should have kept running.

[Arnold_Palmer]

42 minutes ago, Mr. Perfect said:

Prior to him coming here I was never a huge Nichols fan and overall I'd say I'm still on the fence about him.

However that said, while Lapo's offence can be frustrating at times when he goes conservative, Nichols does a great job of executing it overall. Some quarterbacks fit well in certain schemes. I'd encourage anyone to look at Nichols career stats before coming to Winnipeg. They're very average at best. That said, if I recall correctly his touchdowns to interceptions last season were 19-11. Add to the fact he went 4-1 in those stats last night and you can clearly see there is something in this offence that allows him to be successful.

18-9 to be exact. More importantly.. 10-3 as a starter. The fact that we're arguing that he could have had 5,6 touchdowns last night makes me realize how much stability we have at the QB position. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, White Out said:

I mean, he did put up 37 points in 4 quarters, but not good enough?

Really?

It's TBurg... what were you expecting?

[Mike]

Classic TBURGESS