WF - Bombers @ Riders

[JCon]

11 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

 

you saw this, right?

"yeah, we'll leave out the part about how 7 of the 9 games (6 of his 7 wins) he played this year were against 4 teams that finished as the bottom 2 teams in each division, or that none of those 4 teams finished over .500 (the best was Edmonton who was 8-10, then BC 5-13, TOR 4-14, OTT 3-15),  and those 4 teams finished 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th in points scored this year, or that 3 of the 4 (with a combined record of 12-42) were eliminated from post season play half way thru the season...

the rest of the season included 8 of 9 games against the 4 teams that finished 1 and 2 in each division and had a combined record of 50-22 as opposed to 20-52 like the teams Nichols played... we'll keep that as our secret...

but yeah, he really smoked them this year... lol..."

I seriously doubt that he would have had similar success in the second half of the season... and that's not necessarily a knock against Nichols, just reality... I don't understand how people can believe that what he did this year was that significant...

•  

Ha! Edmonton was the second best team in the league when Matt handed them their first loss. 

[TBURGESS]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

Ha! Edmonton was the second best team in the league when Matt handed them their first loss. 

The old 1 team he beat was good theory. 😂

[66 Chevelle]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Ha! Edmonton was the second best team in the league when Matt handed them their first loss. 

or so it was thought that at the time... and wasn't that the game where Lucky went all super human on them and the defense didn't allow them to score a TD all night long? I think it was...  not to hard to beat a team when you defense doesn't give up any TDs...

[JCon]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

The old 1 team he beat was good theory. 😂

It's not a theory. 

 

If Nichols didn't get hurt, we would be hosting the West Final and you would be here complaining about the luck we had not having a QB get injured or something and how bad we actually are. That's not a theory, that's a fact. 

[66 Chevelle]

let's make this real simple... you are QB1, you've got 9 games to play, 7 of those 9 with be against either Group A or Group B...

Group A: Edmonton, Ottawa, BC, Toronto

Group B: Calgary, Sask, Montreal, Hamilton

which group do you select and why?

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

or so it was thought that at the time... and wasn't that the game where Lucky went all super human on them and the defense didn't allow them to score a TD all night long? I think it was...  not to hard to beat a team when you defense doesn't give up any TDs...

I believe it's the game that he went 13/21, 200 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT. 

[66 Chevelle]

1 minute ago, JCon said:

I believe it's the game that he went 13/21, 200 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT. 

and 115 of those yards were 2 passes to Lucky...

[blue_or_die]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

It's not a theory. 

 

If Nichols didn't get hurt, we would be hosting the West Final and you would be here complaining about the luck we had not having a QB get injured or something and how bad we actually are. That's not a theory, that's a fact. 

The bold is a theory only.

One I do not share, and I'm actually a Nichols fan.

[TBURGESS]

9 minutes ago, JCon said:

It's not a theory.

If Nichols didn't get hurt, we would be hosting the West Final and you would be here complaining about the luck we had not having a QB get injured or something and how bad we actually are. That's not a theory, that's a fact. 

This post proves you actually don't know he difference between fact and a theory. 🤣

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

15 minutes ago, JCon said:

It's not a theory. 

 

If Nichols didn't get hurt, we would be hosting the West Final and you would be here complaining about the luck we had not having a QB get injured or something and how bad we actually are. That's not a theory, that's a fact. 

 

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

This post proves you actually don't know he difference between fact and a theory. 🤣

The bolded and italicized portion is fact- not theory.

[Wideleft]

16 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

let's make this real simple... you are QB1, you've got 9 games to play, 7 of those 9 with be against either Group A or Group B...

Group A: Edmonton, Ottawa, BC, Toronto

Group B: Calgary, Sask, Montreal, Hamilton

which group do you select and why?

I get that speculation is fun and all, but no one can accurately say how well or badly the Bombers would have fared if Nichols didn't get hurt.

[Tiny759]

So what about the past years when Nichols has led the team to winning records? Or who is to say they wouldn’t have been hosting the wsf or wf if Nichols doesn’t get hurt? Obviously it’s impossible to tell bcuz he never played those games, but to say he hasn’t done anything significant is kinda silly.

[TBURGESS]

4 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The bolded and italicized portion is fact- not theory.

Another guy who doesn't understand what a theory and a fact are. 😂

[17to85]

38 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

I seriously doubt that he would have had similar success in the second half of the season... and that's not necessarily a knock against Nichols, just reality... I don't understand how people can believe that what he did this year was that significant...

I bet nichols woulda won labour day and the other game in regina we lost. He doesn't turn the ball over much and it was turnovers that let those games get away. 

Honestly too much is made of that "weak" schedule. When we played edmonton they were seen as a top team with trevor Harris as another mop candidate. They way guys got hurt lots changed. Remember that early in the year ottawa got wins against calgary and Saskatchewan... 

[GCn20]

17 hours ago, trueBlue83 said:

WTF coach.... gimmie back my smokes!

I had to walk over to the arena and bum those from Hawerchuk for cripes sakes

[GCn20]

11 hours ago, 66 Chevelle said:

you 'd have to take what you read with a grain of salt... after all, it's an anonymous format which allows people to say just about anything they want, whether it be real or true or not... I guess it would be a way to get some unsolicited fan opinion on everyday happenings...

I did notice a few weeks back that we were having a discussion on the other place and I had made a statement in regards to a topic, one that I thought hadn't been discussed before and the very next day there was an article on 3 down that was almost word for word what I posted... I thought, that's an odd coincidence... 

You are John Hodge's insider source....I knew it.

[66 Chevelle]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

I bet nichols woulda won labour day and the other game in regina we lost. He doesn't turn the ball over much and it was turnovers that let those games get away. 

Honestly too much is made of that "weak" schedule. When we played edmonton they were seen as a top team with trevor Harris as another mop candidate. They way guys got hurt lots changed. Remember that early in the year ottawa got wins against calgary and Saskatchewan... 

Streveler should have gotten the win at the LDC... he got us the lead late in the 4th...

 

I'm not knocking Nichols, just pointing out that he got a soft schedule... I didn't say he played bad, just wasn't some significant feat that he pulled off... 

[Booch]

Let's put it to bed already, based on his history here (Nichols and winning percentage and who cares if it was cause of the defence/st/shitty team. faced..he still wins) how we were rolling when he was playing (leading league in points scored..excellent TD to INT ratio) there is no doubt in my mind that we would have hosted a play-off game and prety certain it would have been this one on sunday.

Matt takes a lot of grief and slack and no credit for wins...always a yeah but, but wins are wins and it's a team effort last time I checked..is he fancy and exciting like Retlly...nope...Is he cerebral and a surgeon like BLM..nope...is he a Grab you by the nuts and drag you to a win like Strev...nope...but the guy rarely did things to directly contribute to a loss (save for that 3-4 game stretch last year...yikes!!) and guys played for him and followed him as he was a leader..speculating never solves anything but man oh man people sure lamented not having him down the stretch...

[GCn20]

11 hours ago, 66 Chevelle said:

I would check from time to time as to how many people were actually viewing the forum and at times there would be a crazy number of people checking it out... 10, 20 times the number of people that actually actively participated in discussion... I guess someone found us interesting from time to time, lol...

As a former businessman I would have LOVED to have a forum I could go to daily where my customers met to discuss my business. Would have been very helpful in getting the pulse of my customer base.

[GCn20]

1 minute ago, Booch said:

Let's put it to bed already, based on his history here (Nichols and winning percentage and who cares if it was cause of the defence/st/shitty team. faced..he still wins) how we were rolling when he was playing (leading league in points scored..excellent TD to INT ratio) there is no doubt in my mind that we would have hosted a play-off game and prety certain it would have been this one on sunday.

Matt takes a lot of grief and slack and no credit for wins...always a yeah but, but wins are wins and it's a team effort last time I checked..is he fancy and exciting like Retlly...nope...Is he cerebral and a surgeon like BLM..nope...is he a Grab you by the nuts and drag you to a win like Strev...nope...but the guy rarely did things to directly contribute to a loss (save for that 3-4 game stretch last year...yikes!!) and guys played for him and followed him as he was a leader..speculating never solves anything but man oh man people sure lamented not having him down the stretch...

I firmly beiieve we would have finished 1st in the West if Nichols would have remained healthy. People can say whatever they want but Nichols ran our O very well.

[66 Chevelle]

2 minutes ago, gcn11 said:

As a former businessman I would have LOVED to have a forum I could go to daily where my customers met to discuss my business. Would have been very helpful in getting the pulse of my customer base.

I know what you mean, I would have too... but, it's not like anyone in the Bomber organization would actually act on anything we've said...  at least I don't think so...

but you know, I think we have some very smart people, both at our place and here... people like to throw the old 'where did you coach at' around a lot but just because you haven't ever coach doesn't mean that you can't understand the game... hell, I wasn't born a millionaire, I figured out how to make it...

[66 Chevelle]

3 minutes ago, gcn11 said:

I firmly beiieve we would have finished 1st in the West if Nichols would have remained healthy. People can say whatever they want but Nichols ran our O very well.

would could have finished 1st without him if the defense would have held in the LDC and the Montreal game...

[66 Chevelle]

33 minutes ago, 66 Chevelle said:

let's make this real simple... you are QB1, you've got 9 games to play, 7 of those 9 with be against either Group A or Group B...

Group A: Edmonton, Ottawa, BC, Toronto

Group B: Calgary, Sask, Montreal, Hamilton

which group do you select and why?

so no takers?  just crickets... 

[Booch]

Just now, 66 Chevelle said:

would could have finished 1st without him if the defense would have held in the LDC and the Montreal game...

yes...true...but i the LDC he may have generated more points as well...especially with Harris out as well...Thats a lot of veteran leadership that was missing in that game..in that environment

[Booch]

Just now, 66 Chevelle said:

so no takers?  just crickets... 

I'd take em all casue I am QB1 and would have swagger and attitude and kick anyones arse put in front of me...truth be told...I never worried about opponents