Matt Nichols Discredited Too Much? Passing Yards Are Meaningless

[Goalie]

2 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

You sir are wrong on all counts!

Oh.. That topic was just a myth? 

[Mark H.]

A myth does not necessarily have to be false, it can also be something larger than life.  Santa Claus is a myth. 

[NorthernSkunk]

16 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

Yup kinda like the one floating around last year and this year that Nichols permanently sucks at throwing deep balls

Who said " permanently ".....  lol..... 

[USABomberfan]

18 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Who said " permanently ".....  lol..... 

Perhaps a better way of expounding upon and bringing this into context would be considering some past posts made about Nichols in regards to his deep throw abilities.  For example, last year or some time in the past I was seeing posters continue a rumor that the Esks dropped Nichols off their roster in our hands because they did not like his deep ball abilities.  The problem is, no links or hard concrete evidence was ever posted to support this rumor which makes me have trouble buying it.

Problem is, it appeared that the rumor was continued, and hence some posters would conclude based on buying it that Nichols would always be bad at throwing deep balls.  So hence, while not actually using that specific word, one could infer that their notion is Nichols would be permanently bad at throwing them.

Edited July 16, 2019 by USABomberfan

[Uncle Bill]

8 minutes ago, USABomberfan said:

Perhaps a better way of expounding upon and bringing this into context would be considering some past posts made about Nichols in regards to his deep throw abilities.  For example, last year or some time in the past I was seeing posters continue a rumor that the Esks dropped Nichols off their roster in our hands because they did not like his deep ball abilities.  The problem is, no links or hard concrete evidence was ever posted to support this rumor which makes me have trouble buying it.

Problem is, it appeared that the rumor was continued, and hence some posters would conclude based on buying it that Nichols would always be bad at throwing deep balls.  So hence, while not actually using that specific word, one could infer that their notion is Nichols would be permanently bad at throwing them.

I was of the opinion Nichols resisted the long ball because he feared being intercepted. I’ve noted Nichols protects the bejesus out of his passes, much preferring to throw it away than risk getting intercepted. I don’t know if there are stats on this, but I’d not be surprised to hear Nichols threw the fewest long balls than most cfl quarterbacks. 

[do or die]

51 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

A myth does not necessarily have to be false, it can also be something larger than life.  Santa Claus is a myth. 

What!!

[USABomberfan]

24 minutes ago, Uncle Bill said:

I was of the opinion Nichols resisted the long ball because he feared being intercepted. I’ve noted Nichols protects the bejesus out of his passes, much preferring to throw it away than risk getting intercepted. I don’t know if there are stats on this, but I’d not be surprised to hear Nichols threw the fewest long balls than most cfl quarterbacks. 

In some ways certainly, and I definitely say he can be quite selective about it.  But based on a number of passes I've seen him pull the trigger on I would hardly call him "resisting".  I would probably say he wants to make sure he has a highly favorable matchup such as Adams, Demski or Whiteheads speed where he feels they can cut open and beat their man.  As mentioned earlier, if it's someone who's a bit raddy at running those routes such as Lankford, or maybe in the past JFG, I highly doubt he'll take that shot.

He may have the fewest, although in the last game I watched him play I don't recall Nick Arbuckle attempting any deep ones.

Edited July 16, 2019 by USABomberfan

[17to85]

Better receivers this year and we are seeing more deep passes.

[wbbfan]

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Better receivers this year and we are seeing more deep passes.

With the limited time from mathews, lack of use for adams and woli + lawler being a bust so far I wouldnt say this group is performing drastically better then what we had last year. 

Many reasons play into success and failure. I think with another year plop has gotten less conservative, nichols has eased into deep balls and improved slowly, and the offense and team as a hole expects to succeed. The teams mentality and level of execution has improved each year under this regime. 

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

With the limited time from mathews, lack of use for adams and woli + lawler being a bust so far I wouldnt say this group is performing drastically better then what we had last year. 

Many reasons play into success and failure. I think with another year plop has gotten less conservative, nichols has eased into deep balls and improved slowly, and the offense and team as a hole expects to succeed. The teams mentality and level of execution has improved each year under this regime. 

The fact is that we don't need to rely on Adam's as much and that means the group overall is stronger. I think demski is playing better, wolitarsky is similar, Whitehead is doing more than dressler did so far... I would say yeah better group.

[wbbfan]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

The fact is that we don't need to rely on Adam's as much and that means the group overall is stronger. I think demski is playing better, wolitarsky is similar, Whitehead is doing more than dressler did so far... I would say yeah better group.

On the whole we are putting up a lot less pass attempts and plays early this year because of explosive plays. I think its too soon and too small a sample size to say woli or demski are notably better or worse. But demski also is seeing less useage.  Also dresslers production was fairly similar to whitehead as a wr. But with less high percentage plays to this point last year. Sts and field advantage has also been even better this year which contributes to the fewer plays and more scores. 

 

[USABomberfan]

3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

On the whole we are putting up a lot less pass attempts and plays early this year because of explosive plays. I think its too soon and too small a sample size to say woli or demski are notably better or worse. But demski also is seeing less useage.  Also dresslers production was fairly similar to whitehead as a wr. But with less high percentage plays to this point last year. Sts and field advantage has also been even better this year which contributes to the fewer plays and more scores. 

 

Well, at least I don't have to hear fans knocking him as being injury prone the way they did Dresser lol

 

I would also say it's always been pretty much in Lapo's DNA to always go conservative or ... Play not to lose with a lead

Edited July 16, 2019 by USABomberfan

[wbbfan]

1 minute ago, USABomberfan said:

Well, at least I don't have to hear fans knocking him as being injury prone the way they did Dresser lol

 

I would also say it's always been pretty much in Lapo's DNA to always go conservative or ... Play not to lose with a lead

Once we get a lead no doubt he gets more and more conservative. He hasnt become aggressive by any means. Merely less conservative early with deep plays.

[NorthernSkunk]

1 hour ago, USABomberfan said:

Perhaps a better way of expounding upon and bringing this into context would be considering some past posts made about Nichols in regards to his deep throw abilities.  For example, last year or some time in the past I was seeing posters continue a rumor that the Esks dropped Nichols off their roster in our hands because they did not like his deep ball abilities.  The problem is, no links or hard concrete evidence was ever posted to support this rumor which makes me have trouble buying it.

Problem is, it appeared that the rumor was continued, and hence some posters would conclude based on buying it that Nichols would always be bad at throwing deep balls.  So hence, while not actually using that specific word, one could infer that their notion is Nichols would be permanently bad at throwing them.

See now after readin what you just wrote I might think he simply wasn't hitting those big threat receivers in practise enough while in Edmonton,  and that is how a rumour like that might get started.  And why he was let go simply because it worked more for Reilly at the time.  And then Reilly rode that wave for a bit. 

What I seen after he got to Winnipeg was a lot of missed downfield throws from Matty.... who's fault ? Who really knows I ain't gonna argue that til somebodies posts a dead horse getting punched..... so now he is completing some deeper balls this year ( 2 ...is what I think TB counts ? Lol)...... but now what I gotta ask is,  it Matty making the throws, or is it having better receivers  making it easier for him ? Either way I'll take it as long as it keeps working.... Nichols doing the Reilly thing all the way to the cup !

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, USABomberfan said:

Yup like in this Google dictionary, among the relevant references, which is:

a widely held but false belief or idea

subtext under that,

an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

kinda like the one floating around last year and this year that Nichols permanently sucks at throwing deep balls

The bolded is where you're still wrong.

 

[TBURGESS]

48 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Better receivers this year and we are seeing more deep passes.

Whitehead's caught 1 deep pass on a good throw his other long TD wasn't a deep pass. Matthews got 1 where he dove for the ball, which matches your idea. Adams and Demski, who were both here last year, got the other deep balls.

[Atomic]

So Nichols got better at the deep ball. What's the problem?

[USABomberfan]

6 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

See now after readin what you just wrote I might think he simply wasn't hitting those big threat receivers in practise enough while in Edmonton,  and that is how a rumour like that might get started.  And why he was let go simply because it worked more for Reilly at the time.  And then Reilly rode that wave for a bit. 

What I seen after he got to Winnipeg was a lot of missed downfield throws from Matty.... who's fault ? Who really knows I ain't gonna argue that til somebodies posts a dead horse getting punched..... so now he is completing some deeper balls this year ( 2 ...is what I think TB counts ? Lol)...... but now what I gotta ask is,  it Matty making the throws, or is it having better receivers  making it easier for him ? Either way I'll take it as long as it keeps working.... Nichols doing the Reilly thing all the way to the cup !

1. That is something that I do not believe either I, nor any other person here has the complete answers to.  The men in charge being Chris Jones and Ed Hervey ... You could write a book titled "Inside the Mind of Jones and Hervey" and theorize about all kinds of decisions they made, and I suspect it'd be a New York Times bestseller.  I do know from watching him there and in Saskatchewan, Chris Jones was in my opinion probably the quickest to change QBs rapidly under any situation, sometimes seeing it work well, and other times seeing it backfire.

Nichols himself was actually a victim of this, and it happened to be against us in one game where ... Well long story short we ended up getting beaten bad as was usual in the Drew Willy days against the Esks.  The subplot was that Nichols was pulled, although the problem wasn't that he was missing throws as much as guys like Adarius Bowman dropping them.  Jones pulled him anyway in that game and stuck in James Franklin.  I can only speculate, but it appeared this move ruptured the relationship between Nichols and Jones, and either Nichols wanted out, or Jones was higher on Franklin going forward (most likely), or both.  Because Nichols never started any more as an Esk and many Esks players threw Jones under the bus about his style after he left.  Bottom line though we picked up Nichols and the rest was history.

2. As some of these previous couple posts were mentioning, i do believe WRs are an attributable factor to this.  Lapolice may be pushing for more of them early in games as well, but yeah i do believe a bit healthier and more confident Nichols also does this.

[USABomberfan]

17 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The bolded is where you're still wrong.

 

Blame Google, they did that

I literally copied and pasted

Edited July 16, 2019 by USABomberfan

[JuranBoldenRules]

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Whitehead's caught 1 deep pass on a good throw his other long TD wasn't a deep pass. Matthews got 1 where he dove for the ball, which matches your idea. Adams and Demski, who were both here last year, got the other deep balls.

And opposing defences are demonstrably different in how they are playing against the Bomber passing game.  There's a good picture on Twitter showing 3 DB's and the SAM of Ottawa lined on the side of the field with Demski in motion and Whitehead on the line on the play where Demski got his TD vs Ottawa, 3 of them were bracketing Whitehead and Pruneau went with Demski.

[Bomber_fanaddict]

Another thing to bring up on Nichols passing stats. And his lower-than-average numbers. And maybe it was brought up in this thread or another one I'm not sure. But we have had a really good return game amd field position. Against Toronto what was his first pass 5 yards for a touchdown because of Nelson's or turn. I can't remember too many long drive or we've had to start deep in their own end zone. Just a thought.

[Mr Dee]

 

Here we go...

Let’s break down Week 5 in the CFL:

https://www.cfl.ca/2019/07/16/accuracy-grades-target-week-5/?utm_source=dlvr.it

Edited July 17, 2019 by Mr Dee

[Tracker]

4 hours ago, USABomberfan said:

Yup like in this Google dictionary, among the relevant references, which is:

a widely held but false belief or idea

subtext under that,

an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

kinda like the one floating around last year and this year that Nichols permanently sucks at throwing deep balls

Nope. A Myth is an unmarried female moth.

[Rod Black]

24 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Nope. A Myth is an unmarried female moth.

With a lisp? 

[USABomberfan]

28 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Nope. A Myth is an unmarried female moth.

I'll add that one in as well