Matt Nichols Discredited Too Much? Passing Yards Are Meaningless

[USABomberfan]

It might be just a select few posters I'm seeing do this, but man some of these criticisms just get so old.  Sure it's all warranted and good to rip the guy when he throws bad passes or makes a bad decision, but now it's rip him even when he completes a deep ball to Matthews that was called back, or the one to Whitehead that stood?  I mean, what is this?  Some Nichols witch hunt where he can do no right or something?

I'm not going to pretend that Nichols was all good, but on series's where our offense was off he wasn't the only one who made the errors.  Andrew Harris was not good either outside his TD catch and had as much to do with the struggles, as did Fenner on defense, Adams and some of Lapo's play calls that 17to85 talks about.

Nichols isn't above criticism and he doesn't necessarily deserve heaps of praise on his head.  But it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that he single-handedly wins or loses games.  That's not how Mike O'Shea's team works.

And his passing yards are meaningless.  You can rack up yards all day against bend but don't break defenses, but if you don't get TDs out of them, you are overrated.  Yup, I said it.  Passing yards are completely meaningless.

Edited June 29, 2019 by USABomberfan

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

 I mean, what is this?  Some Nichols witch hunt where he can do no right or something?

Welcome to Winnipeg Blue Bombers fandom where perfection is expected or you get run out of town on a rail.

[Firekid]

Some guys just have a "chip" on their shoulder and act like stinky old "skunks" when it come to Matt Nichols.

[Booch]

YEAH there are some things he needs to maybe get better at, and maybe at times show some bravado and take control of a game and go off and show he can be a difference maker...if he has to

 

That being said he doesn't seem to have to in this offence...he plays in a way where he gives us a chance to win and score points, and doesn't...or rarely make, or force stupid plays or chances to hinder us winning...and I am totally cool with that

Also is it his fault our run game is so successful and a big reason we win, and our offence revolves around it?..no it's not, but history shows most successful teams are predicated on a strong ground game and strong defense, and can win with Nichols like QB'ing

Heck our team history alone proves that and our last 2-3 cups were won with game manager QB's basically, and one (Salsbury) who for a lack of a better term...sucked

[Eternal optimist]

Yesterday the offense turned the ball over 3 times, twice because of Harris. Our STs completely outplayed EDM, and because of being able to flip the field, instead of turning the ball over, Matt Nichols yet again, gave them a chance to win.

Nothing shows how much this is a witch hunt than the fact that Harris turned it over twice, and yet Nichols is still somehow getting more heat.

[TBURGESS]

Our offence was 3 big plays and a big penalty. 1 of the big plays was a good throw by Nichols, the other 2 were all Whitehead and Demski.

Nichols got more than half his yards on 2 throws, only one of which was a good throw.

Passing yards aren't meaningless. What you're really saying is it's OK because we won.

Folks are comparing QB play, not who won. If Nichols was on Edmonton last night, they would have still lost, had less yards passing and wouldn't have even been as close as they were. If Harris was on Winnipeg last night, we'd have won anyway, likely by more.

[Adrenaline_x]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Our offence was 3 big plays and a big penalty. 1 of the big plays was a good throw by Nichols, the other 2 were all Whitehead and Demski.

Nichols got more than half his yards on 2 throws, only one of which was a good throw.

Passing yards aren't meaningless. What you're really saying is it's OK because we won.

Folks are comparing QB play, not who won. If Nichols was on Edmonton last night, they would have still lost, had less yards passing and wouldn't have even been as close as they were. If Harris was on Winnipeg last night, we'd have won anyway, likely by more.

its pure conjecture to say that if nichols was on the other team they would still lost.  Maybe he would have thrown for 400 yards in a different system??? 

Point being, in the CFL if you don't have a run game, the DLINE pins their ears back and pressures the QB every play.  Harris was bad last night which let Edmonton pin their ears back just like in BC.  

Give it a few more weeks/games and then discuss what this years Matt Nichols is

Nichols did more then Rielly did and Bo-levi is 0-1 on the season. 

Nichols wasn't good, but made the plays the mattered to win the game.  I'm good with that.

 

[do or die]

Nichols has 6 TD passes and 1 INT.  If nothing else, that is a winning ratio.

[Chevy]

Never was and never will be a nichols fan. He has done nothing in my opinion to prove his worth to this team. O'shea bares some of the blame for letting him continue playing still while doing absolutely nothing. Just saying.

[Adrenaline_x]

Just now, Chevy said:

Never was and never will be a nichols fan. He has done nothing in my opinion to prove his worth to this team. O'shea bares some of the blame for letting him continue playing still while doing absolutely nothing. Just saying.

Thats fine.. But i have suffered since 2008 without a team/qb that could win consistently.. 

We have that now. 

I wouldn't want to pay Chung and Rielly 1 million,  I would take Bo-Levi over Nichols.  I wouldn't pick another QB over nichols in the CFL.

 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

the tap-dancing sold me on Trevor Harris, he's my go-to now at QB.

[17to85]

7 minutes ago, Chevy said:

Never was and never will be a nichols fan. He has done nothing in my opinion to prove his worth to this team. O'shea bares some of the blame for letting him continue playing still while doing absolutely nothing. Just saying.

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

[GCJenks]

8 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

Wow, I hope you know him in real life or that is a real b&*ch way to address someone the day they join and before you know their tendancies. 

[17to85]

11 minutes ago, GCJenks said:

Wow, I hope you know him in real life or that is a real b&*ch way to address someone the day they join and before you know their tendancies. 

I got no use for people who show up only to ***** about players or coaches. You want to have a discussion fine, but this isn't the CJOB post game show where people get to just throw out their shitty stupid opinions without being called out on it. 

[Goalie]

I think what some of us are saying about Nichols is theres lots of room for improvement in his play.. 

I dont care about stats but 384 yds passing in the CFL in 2 games is pretty friggin brutal. 

We won yup.. Because our D held Edmonton to 7 Fgs.. And have given up 1 TD in 2 games. Eventually the QB is gonna have to step up and win a game... 200 yards passing and 5 competitions at half isnt good enough. 

I believe @Mike made a statement where it appears our current O is designed more so for Strevelers strengths and Not Nichols... So i wonder how much lapo plays a role but... Nichols lack of accuracy and ability to complete a mid range pass could be the issue also. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Goalie

[wbbfan]

Passing yards aren't meaningless. That's just ridiculous. The cfl is an offense first league, and a pass first league on top of that. If you dont drive the field you dont score. If you dont move the yard sticks the defense gets left out to dry and after a few weeks a good defense turns into a lazy one. 

 When you put up under 300 total yards, and punt more yards (over 100 more yards punting then the offense gained) then your offense gains you have not had a good game as an offense. 

Or when the other teams offense has twice the TOP you do. Our wrs played well. The rest on offense need to do better.

Did we really need another thread on this though? Its all thats being talked about in every thread right now...

[JuranBoldenRules]

From the author who brought us “Fire Hall”

[17to85]

3 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I think what some of us are saying about Nichols is theres lots of room for improvement in his play.. 

I dont care about stats but 384 yds passing in the CFL in 2 games is pretty friggin brutal. 

We won yup.. Because our D held Edmonton to 7 Fgs.. And have given up 1 TD in 2 games. Eventually the QB is gonna have to step up and win a game... 200 yards passing and 5 competitions at half isnt good enough. 

and it's OK to talk about the things Nichols did poorly, but the people coming in acting like he's always been a shitty qb and never done anything for this team, well they need to be called on it.

[wbbfan]

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

From the author who brought us “Fire Hall”

If we lost the game 100% That thread would have been bumped again. 

[Goalie]

Just now, 17to85 said:

and it's OK to talk about the things Nichols did poorly, but the people coming in acting like he's always been a shitty qb and never done anything for this team, well they need to be called on it.

He had 1 real good season here 2 seasons ago now. Last year he was bad... Shell shocked.. Scared.. 

He looks similar this season so far

[17to85]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

He had 1 real good season here 2 seasons ago now. Last year he was bad... Shell shocked.. Scared.. 

He looks similar this season so far

He looked really ******* good in game 1 despite the lack of yardage so don't give me that crap. 

That Edmonton D made Mike Reilly look like shell shocked Drew Willy so maybe we're all being too harsh on him based on 1 game early in the season. 

[Jpan85]

I don't get the shell shocked thing. He stands in the pocket takes a sack when there is nothing down the field yes but I am sure that's what the Lapo teaches. I also don't think people who are behind Nichols think he playing like HOF QB right now. He makes enough big plays during the game to get the job done. It seems like every time the opposition opens a crack for the Bombers offense either by some big penalties or turn overs they make them pay. 5 for 5 in the red zone. 

[Goalie]

I dont see how really good in the CFL is 184 yds passing. Andrew Harris was really good. Our D was good. I don't care about stats tho.. I care about moving the ball... In the air.. On the ground.. 184 through the air just isnt... Its not CFL like numbers. If Harris crapped the bed last week... 

I just dont see Nichols being able to extend a drive or take the hit for the extra yard to wrap the game up. Might say he doesn't have 2... But damn it... I think for his own sake he does.. 

I hate saying this.. I like Matt.. But.. Isnt it more likely he gets injured eventually? 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Goalie

[17to85]

P

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

I dont see how really good in the CFL is 184 yds passing. Andrew Harris was really good. Our D was good. 

Because it isn't about numbers... Nichols looked good in game 1, he didn't need to pass a ton in BC But he was calm and in control and accurate with his passes. Last night yeah it was ugly, but like I said the esks made Reilly look like a raw rookie the week before so perhaps they just have a good defense over there.

[wbbfan]

Just now, Jpan85 said:

I don't get the shell shocked thing. He stands in the pocket takes a sack when there is nothing down the field yes but I am sure that's what the Lapo teaches. I also don't think people who are behind Nichols think he playing like HOF QB right now. He makes enough big plays during the game to get the job done. It seems like every time the opposition opens a crack for the Bombers offense either be some big penalties or turn overs they make them pay. 5 for 5 in the red zone. 

In the two games so far he has tucked the ball and looked frantically to run with out extreme pressure. In the past when nichols has played well he has done a great job of knowing when to take a sack, and when he can throw it away.  Some thing is a miss, but to be fair, the middle of our OL has a hand full of games in their careers. 

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

He looked really ******* good in game 1 despite the lack of yardage so don't give me that crap. 

That Edmonton D made Mike Reilly look like shell shocked Drew Willy so maybe we're all being too harsh on him based on 1 game early in the season. 

He was good over all in week 1. Rusty early but he didnt take many snaps in preseason. Last year he seemingly came back from injury early and had several bad games as well. Its not a 1 game thing. 

The offense disappearing for quarters and half's on end has been an issue since day 1 of plops return.