Training Camp 2018

[TBURGESS]

Without Nichols, the odds are that we lose to Edmonton, beat Mtl, split with Hamilton and lose both to BC in the first 6 weeks. That's good for a 2-4 record and losing the season series to the Lions.

[Goalie]

I think we go 4 and 2. Why? Because i prefer not to be a negative person and actually think we have very good weapons on O... The QB isnt gonna be asked to win games on his own. Plus i think BC is always very overrated by certain posters on here.. I dont think Toronto is so great either. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Goalie

[Goalie]

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Without Nichols, the odds are that we lose to Edmonton, beat Mtl, split with Hamilton and lose both to BC in the first 6 weeks. That's good for a 2-4 record and losing the season series to the Lions.

Odds? Lol. The odds are ?? There are no MFing odds.. Thats just your negative opinion

[blueingreenland]

Or maybe Shreveler starts the season and does very well.

I think if our defense shows up and we dominate on special teams maybe all that will be asked of our young QB ( whoever that may be) is to "maintain" the game...don't turn the ball over etc.

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Without Nichols, the odds are that we lose to Edmonton, beat Mtl, split with Hamilton and lose both to BC in the first 6 weeks. That's good for a 2-4 record and losing the season series to the Lions.

Why wouldn't we split with BC - they're not exactly a juggernaut

[O2L]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Without Nichols, the odds are that we lose to Edmonton, beat Mtl, split with Hamilton and lose both to BC in the first 6 weeks. That's good for a 2-4 record and losing the season series to the Lions.

We don’t play Hamilton twice, we play them once and Toronto once in the first six weeks (and then TO again in week seven). 

[Fatty Liver]

3 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I think the media is reading too much into one year on BC's sideline.

Well Ross did post a -4.2 QB efficiency rating last year so it can't be all hype.

[bb1]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

I think we go 4 and 2. Why? Because i prefer not to be a negative person and actually think we have very good weapons on O... The QB isnt gonna be asked to win games on his own. Plus i think BC is always very overrated by certain posters on here.. I dont think Toronto is so great either. 

Yes well there is a difference between facing facts and being just negative. And the facts are we have been roasting MTL for their weak Qbs now we are in the same boat because of lack of experience and unknown ability. Will they beat the substantial odds against any rookie Qb leading a team to over .500  record? History says no. But we will see....

[Brandon]

5 hours ago, bb1 said:

Yes well there is a difference between facing facts and being just negative. And the facts are we have been roasting MTL for their weak Qbs now we are in the same boat because of lack of experience and unknown ability. Will they beat the substantial odds against any rookie Qb leading a team to over .500  record? History says no. But we will see....

The difference is that in Montreal they are a mess across the board and it'll be very difficult for other areas of the team to play over their heads to negate the poor qb play.

We at least are loaded nearly everywhere so it's not out of the realm of possibility that the other guys can take over the game and win games for us.

[do or die]

We just don't know what we have at QB.   This will be a week to week thing.

[M.O.A.B.]

Wk 1 vs. Edm
Wk 2 @ Mtl
Wk 3 @ Ham
Wk 4 vs BC
Wk 5 @ BC
Wk 6 @ Tor
 

I'd be happy if we split it, 3-3. We will rely heavily to the D on these weeks. Normally, D progress early in the season than the O which might give us a little help. 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by M.O.A.B.

[Mr Dee]

Ok, so that’s 7 weeks of recovery time for Nichols, including this week..

I’ll  be going to that 2nd BC game and I expect to see Nichols as the starter. - 5 weeks.

But don’t worry, I’ll check with both John Hodge and Rod Pedersen first..

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Mr Dee

[Mark H.]

11 hours ago, Goalie said:

Odds? Lol. The odds are ?? There are no MFing odds.. Thats just your negative opinion

Football History says he’s more likely to be right than you.  

[Mark H.]

8 hours ago, wbbfan said:

The OL was mashed, still had hurl, bend but dont break no deep saftey play off spot locked up etc etc etc + the fever not the same team or situation.  

Sure, but we all know what the biggest factor was. 

[Adrenaline_x]

Listening to the Radio yesterday, it sounds like Ross is going to get the first Half, Shreveler the third and Bennet the 4th. 

If true, that Means they are going with Ross to start the season, or perhaps giving him enough to play himself out of the job?

I dunno.. I don't expect us to win any games until Nichols is back so, if we win, i will be really happy, and if they lose i will be okay as the bar is set low. 

 

 

[TBURGESS]

Sorry, I messed up the schedule somehow last night. 😖

Wk 1 vs. Edm
Wk 2 @ Mtl
Wk 3 @ Ham
Wk 4 vs BC
Wk 5 @ BC
Wk 6 @ Tor

I can see us beating Montreal, cuz they don't have a starting QB either and look like the worst team in the league. Hamilton could go either way. I don't see that we have the team, without Nichols, to beat Edm, BC or Toronto. I'll still go with a prediction of 2-4 and that's not based on negativity.

[Atomic]

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Sorry, I messed up the schedule somehow last night. 😖

Wk 1 vs. Edm
Wk 2 @ Mtl
Wk 3 @ Ham
Wk 4 vs BC
Wk 5 @ BC
Wk 6 @ Tor

I can see us beating Montreal, cuz they don't have a starting QB either and look like the worst team in the league. Hamilton could go either way. I don't see that we have the team, without Nichols, to beat Edm, BC or Toronto. I'll still go with a prediction of 2-4 and that's not based on negativity.

Well it kinda is based on negativity, considering we really don't know how good any of those five teams will be this year, and we don't have a clue what we have at QB.  You're assuming BC will be good... why?

[DR. CFL]

If you use the fact that teams playing with an experienced starting QB as a predictor...you might think that factors into odds. I would suggest this will be documented when PRO LINE lists the odds for the Bomber games. They may in fact not even post odds for those games given the QB situation. I get that fans deem this to be negative thinking but odds are not established by fans. One advantage teams playing with unestablished QBs is that opposing teams have little video to analyze when scheming to defend against them.

[Colin Unger]

57 minutes ago, Adrenaline_x said:

Listening to the Radio yesterday, it sounds like Ross is going to get the first Half, Shreveler the third and Bennet the 4th. 

If true, that Means they are going with Ross to start the season, or perhaps giving him enough to play himself out of the job?

I dunno.. I don't expect us to win any games until Nichols is back so, if we win, i will be really happy, and if they lose i will be okay as the bar is set low. 

 

 

I agree with you.. Its highly unlikely Streveler starts game 1 of the regular season.  If Ross is just awful again and Streveler shines again I think there's a chance it could go that way but still unlikely. Just don't see them throwing a rookie out of college out there in game one. Might be better to play him as the short yardage qb and if Ross struggles bring him in in relief a couple of games and then start him in game 3. It would be a lot to just throw a college qb in there in game 1 of the regular season without having even played a snap of pro football. 

[TBURGESS]

32 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Well it kinda is based on negativity, considering we really don't know how good any of those five teams will be this year, and we don't have a clue what we have at QB.  You're assuming BC will be good... why?

It's based on the reality of our situation without Nichols. I'm not assuming that BC will be good. I'm assuming BC with Jennings is better than us with "Who knows what we have" at QB. If we still had Nichols, my prediction would be very different.

Ricky Ray was the last rookie QB to do well and there have a whole bunch of CFL rookie QB's since then. We've gone through tons of them ourselves. The odds are (A figure of speech, not actual odds) that either of our inexperienced QB's are the next Ricky Ray are very low indeed. The most likely scenario is that our young QB's make more mistakes and take longer to process than Nichols would. That's more missed reads, more INT's, more sacks, more 2 and outs.

Defense and special teams will need to be lights out for us to have a chance in most games until Nichols comes back. I'm still not convinced that Hall has a shutdown defence despite the talent level. Defense didn't win us games last year anyway. We won them because we scored a bunch of points and didn't turn the ball over very often. I don't see that happening with inexperienced QB's.

A negative spin would be that we go 0-6 because we have the worst QB situation in the league. Even Montreal has more experience at the most important spot on the team.

[Sard]

13 hours ago, bb1 said:

Well i hate to be Mr negative but i dont see how with our current backups we can go 2-2.even with a great defense. One guy has never seen a regular season game even as a starter. I have seen way too many past horror stories with QBs green to the CFL...IF Nichols only misses 4 games we will be hard pressed to go 1- 3 probably 0-4 with these guys...this is a QB driven league. Hopefully we can come back somewhere down the road...but man we ethier have no luck or bad luck.😕😔

Remember a few years back when BC started the season 0-5?  They went on a tear and won the Grey Cup, so starting 0-4 is definitely no the end of the world.

[Floyd]

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

A negative spin would be that we go 0-6 because we have the worst QB situation in the league. Even Montreal has more experience at the most important spot on the team.

Cue the Drew Willy six page debate...

[Mark F]

 

The Bomber coaching staff is a bit unpredictable, almost peculiar,  about which QB starts, and which one they go with. Went with Drew when most people thought he was done, then finally put in Matt. Which probably saved their jobs. 

Had Davis here for two or three years, and gave him the hook after less than a half a game, for a guy that is now retired. And Davis played well last night.

Hard to say what they'll do, even if one guy has a better game tonight. Or even what they'll do game to game till Matt returns.

As someone else said, some of their decisions about who plays, seem a bit odd.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Mark F

[17to85]

Bunch of pessimists. The D is better simply because the front 7 looks rock solid, we already know this team can take the ball away, we know we have a great special teams unit. Why can't we win games if the qbs simply avoid turn overs? That shouldn't be hard. Sure they might not win a shoot out, but nothing saying they can't play it safe and chip away. Hell that's mostly what Nichols does for us anyway. 

[TBURGESS]

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Bunch of pessimists. The D is better simply because the front 7 looks rock solid, we already know this team can take the ball away, we know we have a great special teams unit. Why can't we win games if the qbs simply avoid turn overs? That shouldn't be hard. Sure they might not win a shoot out, but nothing saying they can't play it safe and chip away. Hell that's mostly what Nichols does for us anyway. 

What makes you think that a rookie QB can 'simply avoid turnovers' or that it 'shouldn't be hard'?

I'm sure everyone would be more comfortable if DoubleDoosh hadn't retired or even if we'd kept Davis around, but that's not what happened.