Does MOS even try out Collaros if Streveler doesn’t get hurt?

[deepsixemtoboyd]

Just wonderin...

[NorthernSkunk]

Try him out ? How ?

 

[baxter]

Without the injury, I don’t think Collaros would ever see the field.

[Fatty Liver]

39 minutes ago, baxter said:

Without the injury, I don’t think Collaros would ever see the field.

....and we're already two weeks into the post-season bitchin'.

[Jesse]

I've been asking myself this same thing....I don't think he does in the regular season finale.

I think we'd have seen some version of the two QB system in the play offs, not sure what it would look like.

[Rubanski]

According to Dave D, prior to our 2nd last game of the season. "You don't trade for a guy like Zach at the deadline unless you're intending to use him". 

 

I don't think it's the injury, I think the play would have had to improve for him to keep the starter job. Play had been slipping. 

[blue_or_die]

3 minutes ago, Rubanski said:

According to Dave D, prior to our 2nd last game of the season. "You don't trade for a guy like Zach at the deadline unless you're intending to use him". 

 

I don't think it's the injury, I think the play would have had to improve for him to keep the starter job. Play had been slipping. 

👆

[Pigskin]

I think the bomber knew that Strv17 wasn't going to be able to win the big games just running the ball. 

[trueBlue83]

37 minutes ago, Pigskin said:

I think the bomber knew that Strv17 wasn't going to be able to win the big games just running the ball. 

it's a fair question.... O'Shea has shown extreme loyalty to his QBs in the past.   When Nichols struggled mightily in the West Final last year, I believe 75 yards passing going into the 4th, he stuck with him.

That said... I think that there was some previous chemistry between O'Shea & Collaros, as O'Shea was a coach Zach's last year in Toronto (2013).  You can see in the media the last couple weeks, there's a bit of a bro-mance with his new QB!

[Fatty Liver]

18 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

it's a fair question.... O'Shea has shown extreme loyalty to his QBs in the past.   When Nichols struggled mightily in the West Final last year, I believe 75 yards passing going into the 4th, he stuck with him.

That said... I think that there was some previous chemistry between O'Shea & Collaros, as O'Shea was a coach Zach's last year in Toronto (2013).  You can see in the media the last couple weeks, there's a bit of a bro-mance with his new QB!

O'shea has occasionally said "it's Matty's team" but I don't believe he's ever endorsed Streveler to the extent that he considered him his starter.  Last season he was chiding fans who wanted to see more Streveler by basically saying  he's had more playing time than a rookie should expect.

[MC]

What a dumb question.  Nobody will ever know.  The Osh haters will believe one thing and other will believe something else.  In the end what difference does it make? 

If Drew Bledsoe doesn't get hurt is Belichick a bad coach? If Wally Pipp doesn't have a headache, is Miller Huggins inept?

[Feeling blue]

I doubt it he  would have played   Strev  if he didn’t get banged up

[JCon]

[deepsixemtoboyd]

Well, I guess I thought it was an interesting question. Guess I was wrong.

Another possibility is that some folks are a tad defensive. 

Yeah, I like the second theory better.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by deepsixemtoboyd

[deepsixemtoboyd]

see below

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by deepsixemtoboyd

[deepsixemtoboyd]

On 2019-11-20 at 12:25 PM, MC said:

What a dumb question.  Nobody will ever know.  The Osh haters will believe one thing and other will believe something else.  In the end what difference does it make? 

If Drew Bledsoe doesn't get hurt is Belichick a bad coach? If Wally Pipp doesn't have a headache, is Miller Huggins inept?

In all sincerity, I did like the gif above. Made me smile. K' now for the essay...

Firstly, I am thrilled that we are in the Grey Cup. Been 8 long years. I've cheered the Bombers faithfully since age 8 in '77. Since then we've won it all 3 times. Each time was positively beautiful. I've also suffered faithfully through the recent 0-5 Cup run. Been hard to be so close that many times and not close the deal.

So, let me say again, I am elated that we're going to the Big Dance for another shot and although some will put me in a "Osh haters" box because I advocate for examining his track record - I'm actually extremely happy for him and his post-season success this year. But...not because I am an "Osh lover" (I guess that's the opposite of a "hater"?) but because I am a hard core Blue Bomber fan and he is our coach and I want them to win, above all else.

That all said, here's why I "care" (JCon) and don't think it is a "dumb question" (MC) to wonder aloud about whether Collaros sees the field if Streveler doesn't get hurt:

Our coach has shown a debilitating and consistent tendency to stick with his starter even when it is painfully obvious that it doesn't make sense to do so. He did it in '15 with Willy, he did it in last year's Western final with Nichols, and he did it with Streveler in the second last game in Calgary this year, where our starter was both ineffective and injured. He even set up Nichols (and the ensuing controversy with fans/media) when he re-inserted the struggling pivot into a game in '18 on a day when the starter clearly didn't have it and Streveler had given fans hope coming off the bench. 

So, while I want to believe that the coach was planning to let Collaros start because it was painfully obvious that we weren't going to get it done with Streveler (and getting it done is, after all, the point), I don't think that that can reasonably be considered a foregone conclusion. And the reason that that matters is if he wasn't going to try out Collaros, then unfortunately the outstanding events of the last 3 weeks would have more to do with good fortune (i.e. that Strev was hurt enough to sit out a game but not so hurt as to be lost for the season) than growth in our head coach's decision-making ability in this critical area.

In summary, it matters because it would bode very well for MOS' head coaching future if he was planning to start Collaros in the final reg season game regardless of Streveler's health. If, on the other hand, he only started him because he had no choice, that bodes less well. 

And for those of you who will now crucify me for being a "downer" on the eve of the big party for even entertaining this discussion, well...I think we're probably just pretty different people. For me, part of the fun of being a fan and a forum member is discussing such questions. If that's not your thing, well, then maybe you really oughten to have read all this far, eh?

But if you did read this far, maybe it's because you were actually somewhat interested, engaged, provoked etc...and isn't that the point?  

Go Bombers!

Edited November 23, 2019 by deepsixemtoboyd

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Quote

 

In all sincerity, I did like the gif above. Made me smile. K' now for the essay...

Firstly, I am thrilled that we are in the Grey Cup. Been 8 long years. I've cheered the Bombers faithfully since age 8 in '77. Since then we've won it all 3 times. Each time was positively beautiful. I've also suffered faithfully through the recent 0-5 Cup run. Been hard to be so close that many times and not close the deal.

Spoiler

So, let me say again, I am elated that we're going to the Big Dance for another shot and although some will put me in a "Osh haters" box because I advocate for examining his track record - I'm actually extremely happy for him and his post-season success this year. But...not because I am an "Osh lover" (I guess that's the opposite of a "hater"?) but because I am a hard core Blue Bomber fan and he is our coach and I want them to win, above all else.

That all said, here's why I "care" (JCon) and don't think it is a "dumb question" (MC) to wonder aloud about whether Collaros sees the field if Streveler doesn't get hurt:

Our coach has shown a debilitating and consistent tendency to stick with his starter even when it is painfully obvious that it doesn't make sense to do so. He did it in '15 with Willy, he did it in last year's Western final with Nichols, and he did it with Streveler in the second last game in Calgary this year, where our starter was both ineffective and injured. He even set up Nichols (and the ensuing controversy with fans/media) when he re-inserted the struggling pivot into a game in '18 on a day when the starter clearly didn't have it and Streveler had given fans hope coming off the bench. 

So, while I want to believe that the coach was planning to let Collaros start because it was painfully obvious that we weren't going to get it done with Streveler (and getting it done is, after all, the point), I don't think that that can reasonably be considered a foregone conclusion. And the reason that that matters is if he wasn't going to try out Collaros, then unfortunately the outstanding events of the last 3 weeks would have more to do with good fortune (i.e. that Strev was hurt enough to sit out a game but not so hurt as to be lost for the season) than growth in our head coach's decision-making ability in this critical area.

In summary, it matters because it would bode very well for MOS' head coaching future if he was planning to start Collaros in the final reg season game regardless of Streveler's health. If, on the other hand, he only started him because he had no choice, that bodes less well. 

And for those of you who will now crucify me for being a "downer" on the eve of the big party for even entertaining this discussion, well...I think we're probably just pretty different people. For me, part of the fun of being a fan and a forum member is discussing such questions. If that's not your thing, well, then maybe you really oughten to have read all this far, eh?

But if you did read this far, maybe it's because you were actually somewhat interested, engaged, provoked etc...and isn't that the point?  

 

 

 

 

Good post- thanks for sharing.

 

I agree it's a good question- most are good with it, some could have need the post season before discussing this, and others- just don't feel the way you do.

 

My thoughts- you don't pull the trigger on a trade like this if you don't plan on using him at all. I think that Osh was going to use him, just maybe not in the way he has been so far- it's just something that evolved from Strev becoming ineffective and Zach coming in and doing much better than expected and here we are now. 

Osh has been loyal to his QBs and players almost to a fault- this I agree with. It's the way he coaches- and there are more pros than cons to his coaching philosophy. I think we are seeing a break away from his die hard loyalty to players and going with what is better for the team- does having ZC in @ starting QB outweigh fostering confidence in your original starter on the cusp of a playoff run? I think it does. Has Osh learned from past mistakes? I think so. Does he actually have an "better" option in ZC than past years? I would argue: yes. I think all of these things are playing a part in why Osh is breaking from his past pattern of player "loyalty or die!". 

Quick answer- yes, I think Osh totally planned on playing ZC, but he did it in a very analytical way by taking in all the angles as things progressed and the result is what we have now. 

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[66 Chevelle]

I disagree... I don't think Osh had any plans to play ZC... he said the week before they traded for him that they weren't looking for a QB... Walters was though... I figured that Walters got ZC for fan optics as many were screaming that we didn't have anyone but McQuire if Streveler got hurt, so, he made a trade... however, Lapo had different ideas than Osh...

speaking of Osh and his loyalty, I feel he would have maintained that loyalty to CS if not for the injury... after all, if we're going to be honest, Streveler wasn't playing that bad... even though his record prior to going into the Calgary game was 3-4 he had played well enough to have actually been 5-2, and this was against the top half of each division... should have won the LDC and we won't even get into the Montreal debacle... 

so, heading into the Calgary game we should have been 12-4 and soundly in first place of the west... in the Calgary game it was said above that CS was ineffective... which isn't true... he took a lead into half time and regained the lead once again in the fourth... however the D once again let him down... 33 pts, the amount we scored should have been enough to win that game... only 4 other times in 2019 out of 180 games played had a team scored 33 or more pts and lost... but D lets down and CS gets hurt... does Lapo pull him, no... in fact he continues to call his number to the point the guy can hardly stand back up... they do pull, but not for the game, they send him back in and again, call his number... at this point even the Calgary fans are screaming 'geez, your QB is hurt pull him before you kill him' (ok, I'm making that part up, but, you get the idea)... no, we just keep calling his number until crap is breaking in CS's body...

Lapo was all in for ZC and got his wish... which is fine, it's worked out for us in the end, but, at the cost of hurting a player... how else do you explain the chain of events in that Calgary game? if not, you'd have to say that our coaches or too stupid, blind, or just didn't give a **** about CS and possible long term injury...

short answer, no, if not for the injury ZC would not have seen the field... chain of events makes Osh look like a genius when it was actually dumb luck on his part and dose of "I don't give a **** about CS" on Lapo's part... 😀