Game Day Thread - League Opener: Eskies

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

burgess actually posted some semi positive comments post game.

Back to form now it appears.

 

He must have been totally hammered

[TBURGESS]

Nope, wasn't drunk at all. I watched the game on my phone in airports the day after it was played. I was/am pretty positive about the Bombers performance. They did better than I expected. Saying that Streveler was good but not great caused two pages of whining that I was saying he sucked and a few folks pretending that I was expecting him to be as good as Reilly, because I quoted Reilly's stats too. Just par for the course around here. I post. Folks make **** up that I didn't say then complain about it.

[17to85]

42 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Nope, wasn't drunk at all. I watched the game on my phone in airports the day after it was played. I was/am pretty positive about the Bombers performance. They did better than I expected. Saying that Streveler was good but not great caused two pages of whining that I was saying he sucked and a few folks pretending that I was expecting him to be as good as Reilly, because I quoted Reilly's stats too. Just par for the course around here. I post. Folks make **** up that I didn't say then complain about it.

Oh if you had only said that he was good by not great... See it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Your threw in the stuff about the esks missing a bunch of dbs, getting a chunk of yards on one play, saying you expect him to have more trouble next week. You were completely downplaying what he accomplished all because the rest of us were simplying saying he did good for a rookie and it was encouraging. 

So you were either being contrarian just for the sake of arguing (which I totally understand) or you are salty that people took issue with your downplaying of a rookie playing well in difficult circumstances. 

To be completely honest it's not even the stats that leave me impressed with what the guy did. You know what makes me the most positive about his performance? He shook off an early INT, he handled the delays like a champ, he settled in more and more as the game went on even in the face of Edmonton sending a bunch of pressure. He basically did the things that other young qbs we have used here have failed to do. He showed that mental ability to not get overwhelmed by the situation. The counting stats will improve with experience but a guy with the right mind set, that's worth it's weight in gold. 

[TBURGESS]

38 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Oh if you had only said that he was good by not great... See it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Your threw in the stuff about the esks missing a bunch of dbs, getting a chunk of yards on one play, saying you expect him to have more trouble next week. You were completely downplaying what he accomplished all because the rest of us were simplying saying he did good for a rookie and it was encouraging. 

So you were either being contrarian just for the sake of arguing (which I totally understand) or you are salty that people took issue with your downplaying of a rookie playing well in difficult circumstances. 

To be completely honest it's not even the stats that leave me impressed with what the guy did. You know what makes me the most positive about his performance? He shook off an early INT, he handled the delays like a champ, he settled in more and more as the game went on even in the face of Edmonton sending a bunch of pressure. He basically did the things that other young qbs we have used here have failed to do. He showed that mental ability to not get overwhelmed by the situation. The counting stats will improve with experience but a guy with the right mind set, that's worth it's weight in gold. 

Nothing I said was inaccurate or negative. Edmonton with backup DB's isn't as good as Edmonton with starting DB's. That's just a pertinent fact as is the weather. The chunk in 1 play was because I knew folks would bring up Reilly's 101 yard shot, which I also included. I included Reilly's stats in the first place in an attempt to stop the whole 'look at the weather' argument, which in hindsight was a bad idea as it morphed into a 'you can't compare Reilly to Streveler' argument.

You'll be a lot less angry if you stop worrying about how I say stuff and just deal with what I actually say.

Streveler's stats weren't impressive and stats aren't the only way to decide if a QB played well or not anyway, but they are a starting point for conversation.

I liked a lot of what I saw from Streveler too, which is why I said he had a good game in the first place. I know that's not positive enough for some around here and I'm fine with that. He played better after the first break, likely because he got a chance to regroup and be coached up during the break. That's not likely to happen again this season. Getting the missed FG return for the TD then getting the ball kicked right back to us also set him up in a way that likely won't ever happen again. IMO that should have been the turning point in the game, but Hall's D let us down again.

I hope that Steveler continues to impress and becomes what the 'positive' folks think he can be. It's way to early IMO to start that talk yet.

[BigBlue]

On 2018-06-16 at 11:52 AM, TheSource said:

Streveler is not going to be the biggest problem as long as the Neufeld factor does not get him in a hospital bed and as long as his confidence holds up while he learns.

Good chance this kid makes it some day as a starting QB in the CFL if the Bombers don't manage to ruin his confidence like they did with Willy.

Condescending Negatron

[Mr Dee]

Whoa..quite the post there. But do be careful, that man may have plenty of resources..

[Goalie]

Saying Streveler got most of his yards on 1 play is like saying Reilly did the same with the 101 yd TD pass. Weird comment to make. 

[Mr Dee]

 

[Tracker]

4 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

 

And while Ross is recuperating, he is missing a lot of valuable reps. This could give Bennett and maybe even Gale a chance to blow past Ross in the QB rankings.

[SpeedFlex27]

On September 2, 1974,  just hours after quarterback Don Jonas had guided the Blue Bombers to a last play win on Labour Day over the Saskatchewan Roughriders at Taylor Field, he was traded to the Hamilton Tiger Cats for qb Chuck Ealey.  He was informed of the trade after the plane carrying the Bombers back to Winnipeg had landed just before midnight.  ( I was on that Air Canada flight in case you're interested). As Ealey wasn't ready to play their next game vs the Edmonton Eskimos, the Bombers started their rookie backup qb Dieter Brock, fresh out of college from  Jacksonville State with zero pro playing experience.

Six days later on September 8, 1974 at Clarke Stadium, Dieter Brock was at the helm of the Blue Bombers for the very first time & for the only time that season as the Bombers starting qb .  He got  hammered as the Eskimos blitzed the crap out of their defense. Brock was either on his back or running for his life the entire game.  His stats reflected how he was manhandled by the Esks defense. He attempted 27 passes, completed 12 for 176 yards, two interceptions, zero tds, a 44% completion average with a qb rating of 35.4. It would be almost an entire year before Brock would have another start against the Montreal Alouettes in September of 1975 at the Autostade after Ealey was traded to the Toronto Argonauts.  Brock would then be the full time Bomber starter for the next 9 seasons. 

I watched that game back in 1974. Brock was hurried, hit & harassed on nearly every passing play the entire game. He looked totally lost playing against that Eskimo defense that day. Little or nothing worked for Brock that game as the Bombers lost 24-2. I actually felt sorry for Brock as he just couldn't handle what the Eskimos defense did to him.  It was a tough, tough day for Brock.

Obviously Brock learned from everything he went through that day as he became a CFL HOF qb with 34,830 yards passing, 210 touchdown passes & a 57% completion average during his career.  He was the CFL's leading passer in 1978,  80,  81 &  84.  On October 3, 1981 Brock attempted 48 passes, completed 41, 16 of those consecutively with an 87% completion average. He surgically dissected the Ottawa Rough Riders defense that day in one of the finest performances by a qb that I have ever seen. He was the CFL's West Division's All Star qb from 1980-82 & an All Canadian in 1980 & 81. He won the Jeff Nicklin Trophy as the West Division's MVP & was a back to back  Schenley Award winner as the CFL's Most Outstanding Player in 1980 & 81. Brock was elected to the Canadian Football Hall Of Fame in 1995. 

Tburg, had you watched that game when Brock got his ass handed to him in 1974 you'd never have thought he'd have any kind of CFL career. Compared to Brock's first start,  Streveler looked 10 times better. He didn't panic & showed a lot of poise.  He threw 3 TD passes compared to zero for Brock.  So, comparing Streveler to Brock in their first game as starting qbs out of college is more accurate than comparing Brock to Tom Wilkinson back in 1974 or Streveler to Mike Reilly last Thursday night. 

I also seem to remember that the game in Edmonton 44 years ago was a cold, rainy day as well. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by SpeedFlex27

[blueingreenland]

I never get tired of Brock stories...my favorite player ever.  Thanks...and puts rookie starts in perspective.

[Jpan85]

Streveler leads the league in passing TDs

[SpeedFlex27]

As a rookie, Streveler will have his ups & downs. What's needed is patience & a willingness by fans to understand that learning our offense & reading defenses, finding a receiver & making the right throw will take time. He should improve the more reps he gets in practice & with more playing time.  Dieter Brock had to wait an entire year before he got his second start but when he did he made the most of it.  Streveler has at least another 5 games to show what he's got as a qb & if he can make the most of it as well.  Those 5 games will be invaluable experience wise for him. 

[TBURGESS]

11 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Tburg, had you watched that game when Brock got his ass handed to him in 1974 you'd never have thought he'd have any kind of CFL career. Compared to Brock's first start,  Streveler looked 10 times better. He didn't panic & showed a lot of poise.  He threw 3 TD passes compared to zero for Brock.  So, comparing Streveler to Brock in their first game as starting qbs out of college is more accurate than comparing Brock to Tom Wilkinson back in 1974 or Streveler to Mike Reilly last Thursday night.

I did watch that game and wasn't impressed with Brock. I wasn't impressed that we traded Jonas either and this story has absolutely nothing to do with our current situation with  Streveler. I'm not going bother telling the story's of any of other CFL rookie QB's who had a good game or two then disappeared, cuz they wouldn't mean anything either.

Calvillo had a horrible first season and went on to greatness. That story doesn't mean anything to this situation either other than Streveler and Calvillo both started in the CFL after being in college the year before.

Comparing Streveler to Brock after 1 freakin' game is exactly the kind of hype train crap that goes on around here all the time. It's also exactly the same thing that folks around here complain about when Riders fans do it with their new players.

BTW: Here's the CFL.CA's QB rankings for week 1: https://www.cfl.ca/2018/06/18/quarterback-index-track-back-stardom/

 

[Booch]

I bet Nichols is starting game 4 this year...just a hunch 

[blueingreenland]

10 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

this story has absolutely nothing to do with our current situation with  Streveler. 

Head stratching statement. The point is...what a QB accomplishes (or doesn't) in his 1st game is not nessasarily a predictor of his future success (or lack thereof).

Although I do agree that we need to temper our enthusiasm for Streveler. The sample size is pretty small at this point.

[SpeedFlex27]

 

So, some random writer who won't put his name on a story ranks Streveler last. By you quoting that story, it tells me that you think it somehow validates what you've been saying. Well, it doesn't. You do seem pleased by it, though. Drew Willy played his typical game. Play not to lose but not to win. Dumb interception at the worst possible time. I'm not surprised with Streveler's ranking & I'm okay with it. .  I'd have put Streveler ahead of Willy based on Willy's  lacklustre performance. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by SpeedFlex27

[TBURGESS]

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Dude, you're pissing me off by being totally stupid. I didn't compare Streveler to Brock the veteran because you did that.  I compared Streveler the rookie  to Brock the rookie starting their first game each which is a fair comparison. You earlier made some snide comment that I need to read your comments more slowly. Well pal, you need a complete reading comprehension course because I don't know how much better I can spell it out to you.  So, I picked Brock.  So what?? Would you rather I picked TJ Rubley, Jason Boltus or Justin Goltz?? Everybody else seems to get it but you. 

You're acting like a Riders fan! Comparing a first game QB to Brock is absolutely freaking ridiculous and it doesn't matter which QB you choose. Picking any QB as a comparator after a single game is completely stupid and you should know that considering the number of QB's you've seen in your life. Take a deep breath and wait for a few games before you make comparisons.

You once told me that it was great to talk about the bombers without the personal attacks and name calling. Calling me stupid shows that you actually meant it's nice to have someone on your side when you argue with others. Congrats. You're now a member of the Positrons. I hope they accept you unconditionally and completely, cuz I'm done with you dude.

Chow.

[SpeedFlex27]

21 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're acting like a Riders fan! Comparing a first game QB to Brock is absolutely freaking ridiculous and it doesn't matter which QB you choose. Picking any QB as a comparator after a single game is completely stupid and you should know that considering the number of QB's you've seen in your life. Take a deep breath and wait for a few games before you make comparisons.

You once told me that it was great to talk about the bombers without the personal attacks and name calling. Calling me stupid shows that you actually meant it's nice to have someone on your side when you argue with others. Congrats. You're now a member of the Positrons. I hope they accept you unconditionally and completely, cuz I'm done with you dude.

Chow.

You think I appreciated being told I need to read your comments more slowly? You basically said that I was unable to comprehend what you said. I defended you more times than I remember when others ganged up on you here but I'm done with that now. I stuck my neck out for you plenty of times in the past & created hard feelings with others by doing it but I thought it was the right thing to do.  Here & at  Our Bombers. I'll be watching with much glee you trying to make a contrary point here & less & less people come to your defense. Have at it & have fun. 

And just to be clear, I said you were  being stupid with your comments. As in acting stupid.  I didn't say you are stupid. Big difference. 

Edited June 20, 2018 by SpeedFlex27

[TBURGESS]

25 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

You think I appreciated being told I need to read your comments more slowly? You basically said that I was unable to comprehend what you said. I defended you more times than I remember when others ganged up on you here but I'm done with that now. I stuck my neck out for you plenty of times in the past & created hard feelings with others by doing it but I thought it was the right thing to do.  Here & at  Our Bombers. I'll be watching with much glee you trying to make a contrary point here & less & less people come to your defense. Have at it & have fun. 

And just to be clear, I said you were  being stupid with your comments. As in acting stupid.  I didn't say you are stupid. Big difference. 

Bring it. To be clear, I said you were also being stupid with your comments AND that you're acting like a Riders fan. Read it slowly, cuz I know you need to to get it right.

All this over saying our rookie QB who threw for 180 yards and 53% completions had a good not great game. 🤣

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by TBURGESS

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

You're acting like a Riders fan!

Whoa! There is no need for that language on these forums... you just can't go full Migs or lyle steaming pile...

Just step back from the precipice man...

Edited June 20, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[17to85]

someone is bored this week, clearly. 

[WBBFanWest]

11 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Bring it. To be clear, I said you were also being stupid with your comments AND that you're acting like a Riders fan. Read it slowly, cuz I know you need to to get it right.

All this over saying our rookie QB who threw for 180 yards and 53% completions had a good not great game. 🤣

 

Yea, but let's be honest here.  If you had simply said, "our rookie QB who threw for 180 yards and 53% completions had a good not great game" there would have been little, if anything, said.  But that's not  what happened.  You made other comments too.  You made sure that "he had a good not great game" would be seen as a backhanded complement, because you wanted a reaction.  It's what you do.  Then, when you got the reaction you were looking for, you moved into the "i didn't say that" stage followed eventually by the "I'm the victim here" finale.  It gets played out over and over because it's what you do.  It's your shtick.  

[TBURGESS]

16 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Yea, but let's be honest here.  If you had simply said, "our rookie QB who threw for 180 yards and 53% completions had a good not great game" there would have been little, if anything, said.  But that's not  what happened.  You made other comments too.  You made sure that "he had a good not great game" would be seen as a backhanded complement, because you wanted a reaction.  It's what you do.  Then, when you got the reaction you were looking for, you moved into the "i didn't say that" stage followed eventually by the "I'm the victim here" finale.  It gets played out over and over because it's what you do.  It's your shtick.  

Nothing that I said wasn't true. You and others made up crap I didn't say or mean, then whined about it, which is your shtick. Then you say I'm playing the victim card because I point out that you're making stuff up and whining about it. Repeat ad nauseam.

 

 

[do or die]

Couple of victims, alright. 

But what I really want to know is which one.... is our victim

😉