Matt Nichols Discredited Too Much? Passing Yards Are Meaningless

[Booch]

Hey after the rain delay t was a 7-7 tie after the Argo's decided to put forth a bit of effort and fight...and no...it wasn't that the Riders took foot off the gas so don't even go there....and all the talk about a record breaking pace in reference to Dunnigans's game was funny as well...

This was basically a game between 2 of the leagues 3 weak sisters, and the less pathetic of one of them beat up the most pathetic one..Sask got a gift start to the season with 3 eastern games, and are at 1-2...and now have a nice mouthfull of CGY/BC/BC and Ham coming up...if they are any better than 2-5 after that i'd be utterly shocked...B.C is getting their crap together so won't be a cake walk for them

[do or die]

Mr. Fajardo was playing the Argos.  Who hardly qualify as a professional football team at this particular time.

[JuranBoldenRules]

The Argos and Als both look far more disorganized than any team I can recall in a long time, like worse than Burke’s Bombers for sure.  

Crazy thing is that they both have quite a bit of talent.  What’s killing the Argos roster wise is Popp’s fascination with size over ability.  Popp really lucked into Tracy Ham and Calvino providing him with a career.  He’s been brutal when he’s actually had to try to build a team.

The Argos and Als did have training camps, right?

Edited July 2, 2019 by JuranBoldenRules

[Geebrr]

Randy Richards had a bad day

[17to85]

Yeah Popp is poopy without a qb to carry him. The Argos might be the worst team I've seen, and I have seen some bad ones....

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Nichols is like MOS. Just over 50%

[NorthernSkunk]

matty vs Dom this week..... gonna be interesting

[bigg jay]

39 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Randy Richards had a bad day

So did Campbell.  Their O-line in general looked terrible.  On quite a few plays, they barely (if at all) got a hand on someone rushing the QB. 

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The Argos and Als did have training camps, right?

sure wonder don't you, the Argo's some of the O players had no clue, were getting told (twice) what to do, on the field.

what the hell, is that coaching, dumb players or both?

 

[Mr Dee]

22 minutes ago, Mark F said:

sure wonder don't you, the Argo's some of the O players had no clue, were getting told (twice) what to do, on the field.

what the hell, is that coaching, dumb players or both?

 

Good points. When Chamblin eventually called for a challenge, he didn’t appear to really know what he was doing, and to top it off, he went ahead with his challenge on a very questionable chance on getting the call.

And players notice these things..

[66 Chevelle]

3 hours ago, Geebrr said:

You act like your comments exist in a vacuum.

Your boring and superficial opinion/agenda is transparent.

 

the only problem here is, it's not my 'boring and superficial opinion... it's fact... real truth... verifiable if you choose...  surely that makes it less transparent, wouldn't you agree?

[Tracker]

3 hours ago, Adrenaline_x said:

But they played Toronto.   

In comparison, Hamilton scored double the points. 

So.  either Toronto stepped it up this week, or They are just really bad and sask isn't nearly as good as the numbers showed last night. 

Which is it?

I'll take option "B" for 40 points, Alex.

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, Mr Dee said:

Good points. When Chamblin eventually called for a challenge, he didn’t appear to really know what he was doing, and to top it off, he went ahead with his challenge on a very questionable chance on getting the call.

And players notice these things..

I saw that as well. My immediate thought was, "Was this guy actually a head coach in the CFL before?"

[Geebrr]

38 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

 

the only problem here is, it's not my 'boring and superficial opinion... it's fact... real truth... verifiable if you choose...  surely that makes it less transparent, wouldn't you agree?

No, it doesn't. Way to weigh in with your "Nichols doesn't throw for enough yards" hot take.

So compelling.

[rebusrankin]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Yeah Popp is poopy without a qb to carry him. The Argos might be the worst team I've seen, and I have seen some bad ones....

When you make the Reinbold Bombers seem not so bad, your team is historically awful.

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, Mark F said:

no he's a Bomber fan from other Bomber forum. good to see him posting here.

The CFL is short of good quarterbacks, Rider dislkie aside,

Let's hope that Cody is not a flash in the pan,and that the Riders have found themselves a good one.

also, the Suiter love gush  for the Riders was hard to take. He's the most annoying one of the bunch.

 

Good to see him post here? Great start.

[Mark F]

51 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Good to see him post here? Great start.

why cause he disagrees with some people?

"variety is the spice of life"

Edited July 2, 2019 by Mark F

[66 Chevelle]

2 hours ago, Geebrr said:

No, it doesn't. Way to weigh in with your "Nichols doesn't throw for enough yards" hot take.

So compelling.

are you implying that my post are off topic? it's not as if I came into the thread and created a post that was completely unrelated... I was replying to post that already existed in this thread and were specific to the current conversation... but, I'd be more than happy to give you my take whether or not Nichols throws for enough yards...

59 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Good to see him post here? Great start.

really not sure what all the hub bub is about... I added a post to the specific to the conversation that was currently being discusses and add information that was new as it had just happened that evening, hours maybe... after that, I'm replied to to comments made by others relative to my previous post... however, I didn't think that by taking part in the current conversation that I'd be accused of being a troll, but I didn't take issue with or come all unhinged and crap...

 

I don't have an issue, I'm not sure why you all do...

[NorthernSkunk]

8 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

are you implying that my post are off topic? it's not as if I came into the thread and created a post that was completely unrelated... I was replying to post that already existed in this thread and were specific to the current conversation... but, I'd be more than happy to give you my take whether or not Nichols throws for enough yards...

really not sure what all the hub bub is about... I added a post to the specific to the conversation that was currently being discusses and add information that was new as it had just happened that evening, hours maybe... after that, I'm replied to to comments made by others relative to my previous post... however, I didn't think that by taking part in the current conversation that I'd be accused of being a troll, but I didn't take issue with or come all unhinged and crap...

 

I don't have an issue, I'm not sure why you all do...

Hello chevelle.... I missed reading your posts after the thin skins over there got me booted for nothing but an opinion.  I enjoyed your posts.  This place is pretty decent and has some smart football people.  Hope you hang around.

[66 Chevelle]

when asked a question such as "does Nichols throw for enough yards" I would have to say that it depends as 'enough' is a relative word and could vary depending on what it's referring to.  If you are referring to if he's throw for enough yards for us to win, the answer would be 'yes'.... one could easily come to the conclusion that while his total passing yards in each specific game would generally be considered a low total, it was enough to help get us a win so therefore any additional yards could be viewed  unneeded...

if you are referring to if he has thrown for enough yards to only help us win, but also the extra yards that could be expected from in game situational manner, yards that would help keep our offense on the field and their offense off the field, I'd say 'both yes and no'...  in game 1 my answer would be yes, even though that game was the lower of the two in actual passing yards, but, not as many yards were required from him because Harris was picking up big chunks of yards that kept drives alive, getting first downs, and winning the time of possession battle. So in game one, while low in total, enough to meet both objectives. However, there were some blown opportunities in game one due to missing receivers deep that had their man beat that could have resulted in additional points and a larger buffer...

in game 2 however, the answer is no... even though he threw for more yards than he did in game 1, just slightly more, we could have used more yards from him or his position as the running attack had struggled all night and for the most part ineffective. the team needed more yards from Nichols via the pass in order to keep drives alive, gain first downs, and keep the opponent's offense off the field in order to preserve the win.  if you ask why does that fall on Nichols, I'd say because he's the only person that touches the ball on each offensive play and that when the run isn't working, in his role as field general, it's up to him to create offense when and as needed.  I will say that there should be a component of reasonableness added to what should be expected from him though...

personally, I don't feel that Nichols met the threshold of what should be considered reasonable in fulfilling his requirement of yards needed, even though we won the game. while everyone should be entitled to have those occasional 'off nights', it doesn't give you a 'pass' even when you win. though some feel that as long as you win why would it matter? I'd say that there are more components to winning a game than just the final score on the board. with as lopsided as the time of possession was, you had to be concerned not only with the possibility of losing the game, but also the health/safety and the mindset of the defensive players.

asking those defensive player to go out there time and again will take a toll of them. fatigue can set in and cause a lapse in mental judgement that can result in blown assignments or costly penalties. and can also be demoralizing for your defense to go out there time and time again and keep them out of the end zone, come to the sidelines and a minute later be asked to go back in and do more. if this team is going to win a championship it's going to required all facets of the game. but the big for me is, the extra time out there for these guys puts them at higher, unneeded risk for injury.  nothing can kill a run like having key injuries to players down the stretch.

moving forward, how many yards are enough in future games, again, it's game by game relative to need.  also, it depends on loss yards due to over/under throws, missed targets, etc., and how it effects the outcome of the game... I'll keep you posted... 

[66 Chevelle]

29 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Hello chevelle.... I missed reading your posts after the thin skins over there got me booted for nothing but an opinion.  I enjoyed your posts.  This place is pretty decent and has some smart football people.  Hope you hang around.

Yo Skunk! good to hear from ya... I had seen you on here from time to time but didn't know how much you actually hung out here... thx for the kind words, much appreciated... at the time you left, me and you were kind of in the same boat, lol... it's gotten only slightly better for me since you've left... but you know me, lol...

I'll probably hang out, at least for a while anyway and see how it goes... I was told that I didn't get off to a very good start though, so.... it may be bumpy, lol...

[Adrenaline_x]

21 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

Yo Skunk! good to hear from ya... I had seen you on here from time to time but didn't know how much you actually hung out here... thx for the kind words, much appreciated... at the time you left, me and you were kind of in the same boat, lol... it's gotten only slightly better for me since you've left... but you know me, lol...

I'll probably hang out, at least for a while anyway and see how it goes... I was told that I didn't get off to a very good start though, so.... it may be bumpy, lol...

Look.. There are a few posters that are "holier then thou" and when their personal opinions differ from yours will attach your manhood and personal character instead of actually debating their opinion.. It gets tiresome, but there are enough great posters that offset the delusional.

There are even more that reject the jet package, but i assure you, its the most elite, tactically sound play any offence can run.  if you disagree you are ****.

 

[Tracker]

23 minutes ago, Adrenaline_x said:

Look.. There are a few posters that are "holier then thou" and when their personal opinions differ from yours will attach your manhood and personal character instead of actually debating their opinion.. It gets tiresome, but there are enough great posters that offset the delusional.

There are even more that reject the jet package, but i assure you, its the most elite, tactically sound play any offence can run.  if you disagree you are ****.

 

That sounds painful and quite inappropriate.

[White Out]

Nichols is winning, and, our team and organization has completely turned around since he started against Edmonton. He saved O'Shea job, that's for sure.

Is he flashy? No. Is he going to be a top 3 QB ever? No. He's a game manager with a very reasonable salary. The 2nd half of the Eskimo game was really bad for our O, especially the 4th. But that was a function of Harris and the O line totally blowing our running game. Nichols maybe missed 1 or 2 open guys all game, and had a lot of yards come off on penalties for and against us.

But no, let's chase the next young kid. All the people who clamored for Franklin are oddly quiet aren't they?

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Mark F said:

why cause he disagrees with some people?

"variety is the spice of life"

No, just the way he came on here.  Anyone who takes Ripper's side is usually a Rider fan.  Came across with a chip on his shoulder,. From his comments, looks like he had the same issues on TEP.

Edited July 2, 2019 by SpeedFlex27