GDT: EDMONTON @ WINNIPEG

[Pete Catan's Ghost]

10 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

Not game play related but really enjoyed the band they had last night. Was a lot better than most half time entertainment. Felt like it kept the energy up in the building. Hope they do it more often.

Like and like

[Mark F]

11 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

Not game play related but really enjoyed the band they had last night. Was a lot better than most half time entertainment. Felt like it kept the energy up in the building. Hope they do it more often.

 The team saw Taynted Faith's posts about having a local band at the games. Realized it's a good idea. Went ahead and did it.

Great for team, fans and band.

"Taynted faith", should be changed to  "Taynted fayth".

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Mark F

[Chaosmonkey]

FYI here is a video of them running the trick play last year with Kohlert as the passer, it is identical:

 

https://www.cfl.ca/2016/10/08/winnipeg-with-back-to-back-trick-plays/

[SpeedFlex27]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:48 PM, Mr Dee said:

@Throw Long Bannatyne and @SpeedFlex27

There is very little difference in that play and any other play the Bombers run, other than one more person handling the ball. They obviously saw something in the Eskimo alignments that put forth an argument to try that play.

You guys didn't like it, fine, but don't talk to me about the  ultra conservative play calling of LaPo anymore.

He's either or. He'll call a run play on first & ten from the opposition 20 yard line that'll gain no yards & then call a flea flicker or 2nd down.  That's the problem.

Edited August 20, 2017 by SpeedFlex27

[Eternal optimist]

On 8/18/2017 at 1:10 PM, mbrg said:

If that's the case, then you all are to blame for the Harris to Adams...whatever that was on the first drive.  You keep accusing him of being too conservative in the red zone; you get plays like that just to prove you wrong.

Did anyone else notice that the gadget play was exact same one they ran late in the season last year against B.C.? Only difference was instead of Kohlert throwing it was Darvin Adams.

[Mark H.]

4 hours ago, Chaosmonkey said:

FYI here is a video of them running the trick play last year with Kohlert as the passer, it is identical:

 

https://www.cfl.ca/2016/10/08/winnipeg-with-back-to-back-trick-plays/

A pox on you for presenting actual facts...

[Pete Catan's Ghost]

I don't think the BB received any hands to face penalties this game. Nice.

 

 

[WBBFanWest]

12 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

He's either or. He'll call a run play on first & ten from the opposition 20 yard line that'll gain no yards & then call a flea flicker or 2nd down.  That's the problem.

6-2

[Mr Dee]

Too funny...

 

 

[Old Bomber Fan]

I don't believe I said I like the likes of Reibolt, Burke or the rest that were quoted. I do believe I said I endured their tenures as I have endured MOS's tenure. So let's be clear on that. As for band wagon jumping or whatever you want to call it, because someone choses not to go to football games to be  unentertained for many years.... yet still continues to cheer for the team while pointing out what he/she believes to be issues with the product on the field or in head office....does that make them non fans??? I think not. If someone was to simply turn their back on the team and not cheer or give a d... what happens to it, well then I guess you could call them band wagon jumping. Sorry there is a difference. I'm one of those people who used to go to the ball game to be entertained and cheer for my team, I was not entertained for many years and after a period of time enough is enough. Because I have a summer residents and spend 3 hours each game day to sit through a debacle it was not worth my time and effort to support in that manner. Also I am one of those who go there to get drunk and make beer snakes and be oblivious to the game itself. I'm not say any one who comments negatively to my posts are these individuals simply that those spectacles are not what I call football fans even though they may have season tickets or have purchased tickets to a game.  So the overall experience was one I decided to avoid BUT it doesn't take away my desire for the team to succeed. I guess the question I would ask is: are those who do not live close by or cannot attend a game for whatever reason still fans or are they less fans or even band wagon jumpers. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

52 minutes ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I don't believe I said I like the likes of Reibolt, Burke or the rest that were quoted. I do believe I said I endured their tenures as I have endured MOS's tenure. So let's be clear on that. As for band wagon jumping or whatever you want to call it, because someone choses not to go to football games to be  unentertained for many years.... yet still continues to cheer for the team while pointing out what he/she believes to be issues with the product on the field or in head office....does that make them non fans??? I think not. If someone was to simply turn their back on the team and not cheer or give a d... what happens to it, well then I guess you could call them band wagon jumping. Sorry there is a difference. I'm one of those people who used to go to the ball game to be entertained and cheer for my team, I was not entertained for many years and after a period of time enough is enough. Because I have a summer residents and spend 3 hours each game day to sit through a debacle it was not worth my time and effort to support in that manner. Also I am one of those who go there to get drunk and make beer snakes and be oblivious to the game itself. I'm not say any one who comments negatively to my posts are these individuals simply that those spectacles are not what I call football fans even though they may have season tickets or have purchased tickets to a game.  So the overall experience was one I decided to avoid BUT it doesn't take away my desire for the team to succeed. I guess the question I would ask is: are those who do not live close by or cannot attend a game for whatever reason still fans or are they less fans or even band wagon jumpers. 

Why do you feel the need to make this post weekly?  Enjoy the games however you want, you don't have to justify it.  Personally I'm ignoring you now because your undue negativity has reached past my annoyance threshold.

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I don't believe I said I like the likes of Reibolt, Burke or the rest that were quoted. I do believe I said I endured their tenures as I have endured MOS's tenure. So let's be clear on that. As for band wagon jumping or whatever you want to call it, because someone choses not to go to football games to be  unentertained for many years.... yet still continues to cheer for the team while pointing out what he/she believes to be issues with the product on the field or in head office....does that make them non fans??? I think not. If someone was to simply turn their back on the team and not cheer or give a d... what happens to it, well then I guess you could call them band wagon jumping. Sorry there is a difference. I'm one of those people who used to go to the ball game to be entertained and cheer for my team, I was not entertained for many years and after a period of time enough is enough. Because I have a summer residents and spend 3 hours each game day to sit through a debacle it was not worth my time and effort to support in that manner. Also I am one of those who go there to get drunk and make beer snakes and be oblivious to the game itself. I'm not say any one who comments negatively to my posts are these individuals simply that those spectacles are not what I call football fans even though they may have season tickets or have purchased tickets to a game.  So the overall experience was one I decided to avoid BUT it doesn't take away my desire for the team to succeed. I guess the question I would ask is: are those who do not live close by or cannot attend a game for whatever reason still fans or are they less fans or even band wagon jumpers. 

If you want to get drunk and build beer snakes go for it, you can do that on your front lawn and you won't have to put up with a lousy football team.

[Mr Dee]

I'm just waiting to hear from New  Bomber Fan for his perspective...

[WBBFanWest]

1 hour ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I don't believe ...  band wagon jumpers. 

Ok, we get it, you don't like to be called a band wagon jumper.  My real concern is that I don't want to see you break a hip doing it, so please, jump carefully.

Edited August 20, 2017 by WBBFanWest

[kelownabomberfan]

3 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

If you want to get drunk and build beer snakes go for it, you can do that on your front lawn and you won't have to put up with a lousy football team.

if you change that to "Crown Royal snakes on your front lawn," I am way ahead of you.

[Old Bomber Fan]

I said that wrong and got roasted for it. I DON"T go to build beer snakes and get drunk, I go to watch and study the game. My bad. As for the negativity, my belief it is honest observation sorry I don't wear rose coloured glasses.

[Atomic]

16 minutes ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I said that wrong and got roasted for it. I DON"T go to build beer snakes and get drunk, I go to watch and study the game. My bad. As for the negativity, my belief it is honest observation sorry I don't wear rose coloured glasses.

I don't think rose-coloured glasses are necessary to be excited about a team that is 6-2 on the season and 16-5 in its last 21 games.  I don't think rose-coloured glasses or even blue-and-gold coloured glasses are necessary to see that Mike O'Shea is the best coach this team has had in almost two decades.  Honest observation would reveal that this team is in great hands and fans should be excited about what's coming.

[17to85]

Wait, this is the guy who crowed about how O'Shea was the terrible coach that made him give up his season tickets right? 

Sorry bud, that's not being objective and not wearing rose coloured glasses that's being ******* stupid. O'Shea is the best coach we've seen here in a long long time and the way the team has come together for him and become the most entertaining team in the league is all the proof you need. 

Sorry that you gave up on being a fan of the team, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. 

[blue_gold_84]

50 minutes ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I said that wrong and got roasted for it. I DON"T go to build beer snakes and get drunk, I go to watch and study the game. My bad. As for the negativity, my belief it is honest observation sorry I don't wear rose coloured glasses.

This is a solid team and one of the most competitive and entertaining we've seen in a long while, and it doesn't take "rose coloured glasses" to make that observation. Have you been living under a rock the last year or so? Or perhaps it was under a bridge.

All you've managed to do is come across as ignorant and out to lunch where this team and your understanding of football are concerned. I would suggest opening up a dictionary and looking up the words study, honest, and observation. You're using none of them correctly in your garbage commentary.

[bearpants]

Just had a chance to review the two most "controversial" plays of the game... FWIW (not much) these are my thoughts:

Watson 75-yard play: I saw no issues with it... the 2 receivers blocking were border-line holding, but they both would've been bad calls... it was just a well executed play by Edm... coupled with poor tackling from the Bombers...

The IC call against Heath on the game-sealing INT: by the "letter of the law" that was the right call... from a purely "eye-test" football perspective, that call needs to go away... complete garbage that a receiver can run into a DB and get a call... exact same thing happened against Ottawa... the problem with this play is the way it is called, not the actual on-field call itself...

[Mr Dee]

5 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Just had a chance to review the two most "controversial" plays of the game... FWIW (not much) these are my thoughts:

Watson 75-yard play: I saw no issues with it... the 2 receivers blocking were border-line holding, but they both would've been bad calls... it was just a well executed play by Edm... coupled with poor tackling from the Bombers...

The IC call against Heath on the game-sealing INT: by the "letter of the law" that was the right call... from a purely "eye-test" football perspective, that call needs to go away... complete garbage that a receiver can run into a DB and get a call... exact same thing happened against Ottawa... the problem with this play is the way it is called, not the actual on-field call itself...

On the Watson play, I was more mad at the lack of good tackling by the Bombers than the 'holdin' from Edmonton. Could have gone either way. Not worth a challenge.

As to the DBs being run over, your "letter of the law"  quote is accurate. A CFL source has confirmed that very wording. 

And yes, as to the way the call is made on DBs, that has to change, when they are obviously run into. That very fact was brought up by none other than Chris Jones. He believes that Calgary runs plays exactly for that reason..that is, to draw contact penalties. Especially before the challenge rule was changed. I believe there is some truth to that belief. 

To me, if a defender is merely 'standing his ground', I don't see why an illegal contact penalty should be called. This call invites receivers to initiate  contact for that very reason.

[mbrg]

10 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

On the Watson play, I was more mad at the lack of good tackling by the Bombers than the 'holdin' from Edmonton. Could have gone either way. Not worth a challenge.

As to the DBs being run over, your "letter of the law"  quote is accurate. A CFL source has confirmed that very wording. 

And yes, as to the way the call is made on DBs, that has to change, when they are obviously run into. That very fact was brought up by none other than Chris Jones. He believes that Calgary runs plays exactly for that reason..that is, to draw contact penalties. Especially before the challenge rule was changed. I believe there is some truth to that belief. 

To me, if a defender is merely 'standing his ground', I don't see why an illegal contact penalty should be called. This call invites receivers to initiate  contact for that very reason.

As far as I'm concerned, every time a pass is thrown both teams should have equal claim on the ball.  Yet on 50-50 jump balls the penalty always goes against the DB.  The CFL needs to stop bailing out QBs who make these irresponsible throws.

[WBBFanWest]

2 hours ago, Old Bomber Fan said:

I said that wrong and got roasted for it. I DON"T go to build beer snakes and get drunk, I go to watch and study the game. My bad. As for the negativity, my belief it is honest observation sorry I don't wear rose coloured glasses.

Before you continue digging yourself deeper, please watch this short educational video:

 

[SPuDS]

On 8/18/2017 at 4:39 PM, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

The main difference is the chances of it working out are very slim, so it has a much higher risk of failure than a standard play.

 I think you are putting too much emphasis on the fact its a "trick" play.. the percentages of it working or not are probably similar to any passing play, really..  it had one extra step in it from the standard passing play. .

[SPuDS]

On 8/18/2017 at 2:39 PM, Atomic said:

He looked a lot like JFG to be honest.  Sure handed and able to break a tackle.  Probably not going to blow anyone out of the water but he's a nice Canadian depth piece.

apparently to Matt Nichols as well, lol.. he had no clue he'd subbed in for JFG