Bombers Re-sign Neufeld and Hardrick

[rebusrankin]

1 hour ago, Blueandgold said:

Gray doesn’t love football and he absolutely is going to chase the highest dollar .

He’s going to make as much money as he can and quit. I wouldn’t say with 100% certainty that he ever plays in the CFL, and that if he does, he will long term.

Proof?

[wbbfan]

8 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

Proof?

QFT. heard people sayin some crazy stuff about him since the mention that he grew up a rider fan... 

[Eternal optimist]

Across the board, if there was a single unit on our team that played hard night in and out and gave our team a chance to win it was the O-line. I still have nightmares of our line from previous years... it certainly was offensive.

[Mr Dee]

Is it any wonder why this guy is loved so much?

 

And our very own Neufie..

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Mr Dee

[Mark F]

I didn't notice Nichols having problems being clobbered when he was passing, or a lack of running room for Harris, last game or two when Neufeld was playing.

 

 

[Mark H.]

43 minutes ago, Mark F said:

I didn't notice Nichols having problems being clobbered when he was passing, or a lack of running room for Harris, last game or two when Neufeld was playing.

 

 

It's not that - it's more the downgrade when Bond was not in there - not quite the same potential for big runs. 

[Mark F]

Nicholshimself said he was imobile in the last game..... could not leave the pocket.

Edmonton supposedly one of the top D lines. Nichols was a sitting duck.  Yet with Neufeld in, how many times was Nichols sacked or pressured? It wasn't a problem.  Neufeld did his job well.

It's also possible that he's improved since he was last starting isn't it? I

Anyway, Walby says he's good. I'm with Walby!

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Mark F
edit

[JCon]

I love Neufeld as our 6th OL. Great on rotation, NI, leader, teacher (by all accounts), and can play in a lot of different positions.

We were lucky to have such a healthy OL for most of the season but we had Neufeld to step in when needed.

I love both of these signings but still hope we can re-sign Bond. If nothing else, we have trade bait to add elsewhere.

[Floyd]

These are basically two of the easiest signings...  let's see Bryant, bond and spooner now 

[SPuDS]

15 hours ago, wbbfan said:

He may not be. Couture is as ready as newfie is good at worst though. Dont think he has the size to play guard in a strong/man blocking scheme though. Didnt hardrick also struggle at guard before the switch to tackle? idr. 

NI ol arent often ready to perform when they start. They are often forced into it by injuries, or are ready enough to sink or swim. Chung wasnt allstar quality day one, maybe not league average for a guard either. But he was worth taking some bumps to allow him to progress to that level. 

Oh I agree.. i'm a big believer in trial by fire as long as they are ready to play.  You can break a player's spirit by putting him in before he's ready (and yes I realize if you ain't tough enough at this level to step in and mentally handle it, you may never be) so I do like to give them limited reps and then work them in on an injury fill in, etc type reps. 

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, SPuDS said:

Oh I agree.. i'm a big believer in trial by fire as long as they are ready to play.  You can break a player's spirit by putting him in before he's ready (and yes I realize if you ain't tough enough at this level to step in and mentally handle it, you may never be) so I do like to give them limited reps and then work them in on an injury fill in, etc type reps. 

Your definition of trial by fire is actually kind of not trial by fire at all

[17to85]

4 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Your definition of trial by fire is actually kind of not trial by fire at all

yeah no kidding, pretty much the opposite of trial by fire. 

[SPuDS]

44 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Your definition of trial by fire is actually kind of not trial by fire at all

throwing a guy into the breech for any period of time before they are ready is a trial by fire imo.

even in reduced minutes, no?

[SPuDS]

39 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

yeah no kidding, pretty much the opposite of trial by fire. 

how do you figure?  If the guy isn't ready and tossed into the fray. even if its only for a few series or a game... is that not still a trial by fire??

 

me thinks you 2 are being a tad pedantic here.

[pigseye]

Theses are 300 plus pounders we're taking about, Neufeld needed time to get back in game shape because he was injured so often. If he can stay healthy he is showing he can play and maybe even start.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, SPuDS said:

how do you figure?  If the guy isn't ready and tossed into the fray. even if its only for a few series or a game... is that not still a trial by fire??

 

me thinks you 2 are being a tad pedantic here.

No giving a guy limited reps before he's not  ready is pretty much the definition of bringing him along slowly. Trial by fire is saying "alright kid, here's your spot go play it"

Edited November 17, 2017 by 17to85

[Atomic]

"Trial by fire" implies that you don't know whether a given player is ready or not, and you intend to find out by putting him in a game.

[SPuDS]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

No giving a guy limited reps before he's ready is pretty much the definition of bringing him along slowly. Trial by fire is saying "alright kid, here's your spot go play it"

no, giving a guy time to develop on the PR and in pre-season is bringing him along slowly... putting a guy who may not be ready into the lineup, is a trial by fire.   semantics, I'm sure but bring up someone slowly imo never involves throwing them into the breech.   limited reps or emergency fill-in still gives the guy that "omfg its REAL!" feelings im sure that they wouldn't get on the PR or in pre-season reps.

 

IMO anyway.

[StevetheClub]

17 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

3 hours ago, SPuDS said:

Oh I agree.. i'm a big believer in trial by fire as long as they are ready to play.  You can break a player's spirit by putting him in before he's ready (and yes I realize if you ain't tough enough at this level to step in and mentally handle it, you may never be) so I do like to give them limited reps and then work them in on an injury fill in, etc type reps. 

no, giving a guy time to develop on the PR and in pre-season is bringing him along slowly... putting a guy who may not be ready into the lineup, is a trial by fire.   semantics, I'm sure but bring up someone slowly imo never involves throwing them into the breech.   limited reps or emergency fill-in still gives the guy that "omfg its REAL!" feelings im sure that they wouldn't get on the PR or in pre-season reps.

 

IMO anyway.

 

Not to extend this conversation or pick on you, but just to clarify things. Quote #1 =/ quote #2. Perhaps what you meant to type and what you actually did are different in #1.

Edited November 17, 2017 by StevetheClub

[bigg jay]

duplicate post.  Stevetheclub beat me to it.

Edited November 17, 2017 by bigg jay

[SPuDS]

44 minutes ago, StevetheClub said:

Not to extend this conversation or pick on you, but just to clarify things. Quote #1 =/ quote #2. Perhaps what you meant to type and what you actually did are different in #1.

yes and no.   if the player is ready to jump into the breech, mentally and physically, then I believe in it. let him give it a shot and if he flames out.. so be it.

 

IF the player is NOT ready then bring him along slowly.   this isn't rocket surgery folks.  

 

dunno if I didn't explain it fully but again... 

 

If a player is ready and willing to take the chance and feels like he can do it.. let him showcase it in a trial by fire type development standpoint.. If he is not comfortable with the role yet, isn't physically there as of yet or mentally tough enough.. then develop him slowly..

 

can't explain it any better then this.   player has to be comfortable with the concept of sink or swim for it to work imo.  throwing him to the wolves without that faith and you run the risk of messing with a players development really bad.

[Blueandgold]

On 2017-11-16 at 6:50 PM, rebusrankin said:

Proof?

I played with him for years. 

No theories or assumptions needed.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Blueandgold

[WBBFanWest]

18 hours ago, SPuDS said:

yes and no.   if the player is ready to jump into the breech, mentally and physically, then I believe in it. let him give it a shot and if he flames out.. so be it.

 

IF the player is NOT ready then bring him along slowly.   this isn't rocket surgery folks.  

 

dunno if I didn't explain it fully but again... 

 

If a player is ready and willing to take the chance and feels like he can do it.. let him showcase it in a trial by fire type development standpoint.. If he is not comfortable with the role yet, isn't physically there as of yet or mentally tough enough.. then develop him slowly..

 

can't explain it any better then this.   player has to be comfortable with the concept of sink or swim for it to work imo.  throwing him to the wolves without that faith and you run the risk of messing with a players development really bad.

Not to pile on, but if you're wearing the uniform on game day, you need to be ready to go.  It's not the player's call to decide if he "feels he can do it" or if he's "comfortable".  You're getting paid, you bloody well better be ready to play if called upon.

[Floyd]

Let's give spuds some time to make sense once he's ready - you know in the right head space... maybe a couple years of development then BANG his posts better start making sense or else!!!

[blue_gold_84]

14 hours ago, Blueandgold said:

I played with him for years. 

No theories or assumptions needed.

So, no proof. Gotcha.