Dragon37 Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said: Whatever happened to the days that you could use both QB's strategically without fear of melting a snowflake. Pretty much never unless you have no "proven" starter.
JCon Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 8 hours ago, Dragon37 said: Which international do they sit to start Flanders? Good question. I'm not sure. I'm going to think about that though.
HardCoreBlue Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 9 hours ago, Dragon37 said: Pretty much never unless you have no "proven" starter. My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up. It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven. It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo.
Dragon37 Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said: My original post has nothing to do with the scenario "proven" starter struggling and giving more playing time to the back-up. It has to do with using all your weapons strategically at your disposal, in this case at your QB position, and has nothing to do with who is proven. It has to do with keeping the D off balance imo. I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever.
HardCoreBlue Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, Dragon37 said: I know I was just saying that unless a team doesn’t have a #1 that has never happened in the CFL since I started watching in 1976. So if it hasn’t been common practice don’t expect to be common practice...ever. Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind. Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios.
JCon Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: Tommy Clements and John Hufnagel comes to mind. Yes I agree not a common practice but at times you do see some coaches keeping their back-ups in after they made their one yard gain for a first down. I just think it's something to explore a little bit more in depth, especially from a strategic point. I say strategic because I fully understand how important it is to ensure you don't negatively screw with the rhythm and psyche of your starting QB. I just find that using a different QB with a different skill set at strategic moments (other than 1 yard plunges), if it presents itself , has nothing to do with not supporting the #1 QB. I think QB controversies and using QB's strategically are two different scenarios. They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. blue_gold_84 1
bearpants Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 18 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said: Whatever happened to the days that you could use both QB's strategically without fear of melting a snowflake. I don;t think Nichols' ego is the problem here... it would be O'Shea's unwillingness to use his second QB more... also, there was never really a time when this was a common practice... a few teams have tinkered with it over the years, but that's about it..
Floyd Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 6 hours ago, JCon said: Good question. I'm not sure. I'm going to think about that though. I'd sit Fogg... but I don't think you can slot Flanders in - really think you have to run with Lafrance and Augustine If you start Flanders and try to run with 3 NI REC, you basically have no backup if someone's injured JCon and SPuDS 2
HardCoreBlue Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 1 hour ago, JCon said: They've done that consistently, with mixed success, with the Bombers for the past two seasons at least. The Fever did it and so has Streveler. I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view.
JCon Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 20 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: I agree they've done it, Bombers that is, over the last couple of seasons. Not sure what you mean by consistently as I said previously more teams are doing it it but not much if you look at it from 60 minutes in a game point of view. I thought you were suggesting that the Bombers were not doing this.
HardCoreBlue Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, JCon said: I thought you were suggesting that the Bombers were not doing this. Nope. Just a hope they are considering working it into their gameplan a bit more than they do. JCon 1
blue_gold_84 Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 I'd much rather see a return of the no-huddle offense than a QB tandem. Goalie, SPuDS, JCon and 3 others 6
NorthernSkunk Posted September 25, 2018 Report Posted September 25, 2018 2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said: I'd much rather see a return of the no-huddle offense than a QB tandem. No huddle offence and the QB tandem..... blue_gold_84 1
blue_gold_84 Posted September 26, 2018 Report Posted September 26, 2018 1 hour ago, NorthernSkunk said: No huddle offence and the QB tandem.....
Bigblue204 Posted September 27, 2018 Report Posted September 27, 2018 The problem with the no huddle offence is the slow ass Refs. Blow the play in ya jackass! sweep the leg, Floyd and blue_gold_84 2 1
DougR Posted September 28, 2018 Report Posted September 28, 2018 ....for the last spot in the playoffs. It's a 6 week playoff series to see who gets the Crossover nod. I've seen one prediction where they think the Lions will end up 9-9 and make it into the playoffs. What have you seen? LIONS....TIGERS....AND BLUE BOMBERS.....OH MY!
Mr Dee Posted September 28, 2018 Author Report Posted September 28, 2018 There is already a thread on this topic.. Noeller and JCon 1 1
17to85 Posted September 28, 2018 Report Posted September 28, 2018 Not to mention it's not just the lions and bombers. **** is close enough the only team free and clear in the west is calgary. bearpants and Bigblue204 2
Mr Dee Posted September 29, 2018 Author Report Posted September 29, 2018 B.C. has done their part, losing their 7th game, putting the Bombers temporary in 4th spot. Now it’s time for the Bombers to give Edmonton their 7th loss. Then, I can change the title of the thread..
Floyd Posted September 30, 2018 Report Posted September 30, 2018 Time to remember who all said Edmonton was beatable... and time to see how many trolls DON'T show up this week... blue_gold_84, Mr Dee and SPuDS 2 1
Mr Dee Posted September 30, 2018 Author Report Posted September 30, 2018 7 losses across the playoff board. And, we played our way back in the race. Can we get Saskatchewan involved now? 😁 SPuDS, rebusrankin, blue_gold_84 and 1 other 4
Dragon37 Posted September 30, 2018 Report Posted September 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, Floyd said: Time to remember who all said Edmonton was beatable... and time to see how many trolls DON'T show up this week... It was always about if the Winnipeg D showed up. I thought it would come down to our secondary but Richie found a way to dial up the pressure.
JuranBoldenRules Posted September 30, 2018 Report Posted September 30, 2018 If the season ended today we'd play Sask in the West Semi and have the 2nd and 3rd overall picks in the 2019 Draft. 17to85, SPuDS, the watcher and 2 others 4 1
blueingreenland Posted September 30, 2018 Report Posted September 30, 2018 4 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said: If the season ended today we'd play Sask in the West Semi and have the 2nd and 3rd overall picks in the 2019 Draft. Can you elaborate on the 2nd and 3rd overall picks? Is there a trade or two I missed?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now