CHAMPS at Elks GDT

[BomberfanMKS]

13 hours ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

I see the appeal by the Edmonton coaching staff on a guy like Cornelius. Good arm and extremely mobile, but man this guy does not have the IT factor with his QB IQ. He simply cannot read a play. Remember Bishop was once upon the future in New England over a guy like Brady and threw the prettiest ball I’ve ever seen but he could not read a defense. 

I dunno... the guy is extremely inexperienced at the pro level... This was his 3rd start and it's seemed to me that he's progressing...  

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

Your first four points make sense but the last three are very confusing… let’s start at the end…

bombers won 30-3 last week and they should’ve lost?!? Interesting take… teams don’t accidentally win by 27 points…

edmonton showed how to beat the bombers by losing to the bombers… seems logical…

the Grymes pick would’ve ended the game… so you’re assuming the bombers offense would’ve just shut down with over 11 mins left in the game… bombers out scored Edm 10-0 from that point on and should’ve been 13-0… it would’ve absolutely shifted momentum but to automatically assume they would’ve lost is completely illogical…

it was by no means a perfect game but you make it sound like this team is on the verge of collapse… good teams find ways to win, even when they have a bad game…

I didn't say the other game was last week. It was the Calgary game.

One of the two worst teams in the league coulda won if a DB simply catches a ball thrown right to him. Why? Cuz the blitz got to Collaros. Teams that are better than #8 will see that and use it.

The Grymes pick would have been a 147 point difference. 7 for them. -7 for us. The drive afterwards never would have happened. The Bombers would have scored 3 points instead of 10 which wouldn't have been enough,

I'm not suggesting the team is on the verge of collapse.

59 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

They showed the league how to beat the Bombers? They didn't beat them though. And the Grymes drop wasn't at the end of the game....you make some good points and then follow by making some very weird points. 

See my earlier comment.

[JCon]

It's really difficult for some that the Bombers keep winning. They're here trying to convince us that they're bad, as they usually do. They really want them to lose. 

Typically, we only see them when the Bombers lose but, since that isn't happening, they're just going to dump on them when they're winning. 

It's exhausting.

[bearpants]

12 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I didn't say the other game was last week. It was the Calgary game.

One of the two worst teams in the league coulda won if a DB simply catches a ball thrown right to him. Why? Cuz the blitz got to Collaros. Teams that are better than #8 will see that and use it.

The Grymes pick would have been a 147 point difference. 7 for them. -7 for us. The drive afterwards never would have happened. The Bombers would have scored 3 points instead of 10 which wouldn't have been enough,

I'm not suggesting the team is on the verge of collapse  

Fair enough on the first point… but even still, let’s say the bombers lost both those games and are 7-3 and still in first place… are they just lucky to be there?

on the blitz stuff… you’re assuming the coaching staff is just going to go “oh boy, we didn’t handle the blitz well… let’s just ignore it and hope it doesn’t come up again”… I trust the coaching staff is going to come up with new plans to counter it…

for some reason you’re assuming the bombers would’ve only scored a FG on the following drive… and then not score again… if that play was in the last minute, I’d agree… but again, there was 11 minutes left in the game… lots of time to come back…

[wbbfan]

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

Your first four points make sense but the last three are very confusing… let’s start at the end…

bombers won 30-3 last week and they should’ve lost?!? Interesting take… teams don’t accidentally win by 27 points…

edmonton showed how to beat the bombers by losing to the bombers… seems logical…

the Grymes pick would’ve ended the game… so you’re assuming the bombers offense would’ve just shut down with over 11 mins left in the game… bombers out scored Edm 10-0 from that point on and should’ve been 13-0… it would’ve absolutely shifted momentum but to automatically assume they would’ve lost is completely illogical…

it was by no means a perfect game but you make it sound like this team is on the verge of collapse… good teams find ways to win, even when they have a bad game…

Grymes pick wouldn't have ended the game but it would've made it close. Also we dropped an easy pick 6 too. 

1 hour ago, Jpan85 said:

Elks pass defence is good. 

This. Our pass pro was hurt they have a very good secondary a very good DC and they've seen us 3 times in 4 games. Can't say enough about how hard that makes things. 

36 minutes ago, Nolby said:

I'll probably get a little flack for this but I like Brady's running style better than Harris. I know Harris is significantly older than Oliveira but Brady has the ability to go east and west while running north or south. I'm not saying bench Harris for him,just saying that when Harris's time comes or injuries happen(like last night) that I'm comfortable with Brady taking over and last night was seemless.

I love Bradys run style. He also looked much faster and the best we've seen him. I love what Harris brings too but Brady looked a lot like stanback but with great hands. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

I think Olivera missed a key block on one of the sacks.

[rebusrankin]

So Grymes would have scored a TD for sure but nothing else would have changed and we would have lost? Whose to say if he did do that, the Bombers don't mount a game tying TD drive?

[Geebrr]

Good teams make plays, bad teams don't.

Good teams find ways to win,  bad teams don't.

Saying you know what would happen with complete certainty had Grymes picked the ball off is just ridiculous. 

 

By the way, Brady Oliveira was pass blocking that play and would certainly of had a chance to prevent a TD.

So no, it was not a guaranteed TD.

[TBURGESS]

36 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Fair enough on the first point… but even still, let’s say the bombers lost both those games and are 7-3 and still in first place… are they just lucky to be there?

on the blitz stuff… you’re assuming the coaching staff is just going to go “oh boy, we didn’t handle the blitz well… let’s just ignore it and hope it doesn’t come up again”… I trust the coaching staff is going to come up with new plans to counter it…

for some reason you’re assuming the bombers would’ve only scored a FG on the following drive… and then not score again… if that play was in the last minute, I’d agree… but again, there was 11 minutes left in the game… lots of time to come back…

I didn't say we're lucky to be in 1st place. I said we coulda lost 2 games that we won due to mistakes other teams made, not great plays our team made. I asked if those 2 games were luck or not. I'd call them 50-50 games so I'd expect us to win one and lose one, but we won both.

The game totally changed on that one play. It was a 14 point difference. One of our big plays was a 45+ yard reception right after the missed pick 6 when we, rightly, picked on Grymes who had just dropped it. That play doesn't happen if Grymes could catch. Why would you assume that we'd score a TD and a FG in the last 10 minutes while they didn't score any points, when we only scored 3?

Edmonton is a bottom feeder for a reason and one of those reasons is they can't make the big play when it's given to them. Give any other team, not named the Redblacks, that chance and they'll make the play 99 times out of 100.

[Geebrr]

The Elks should not even have been tied at that point. 

The 2 point convert should have been blown dead as forward progress had stopped.

 

Grymes is a well respected talented player.

If you want go play "woulda coulda" on plays guys should have made that would have impacted the game I can show you about 40 missed tackles.

Despite that, their O still did **** all for yards or points.

[O2L]

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Why would you assume that we'd score a TD and a FG in the last 10 minutes while they didn't score any points, when we only scored 3?

Because we almost exclusively handed the ball off after the Bailey touchdown to kill the clock. Our game plan was situational based on being up a touchdown. If we were down a touchdown the play calling would have reflected that (just like how when it was tied, we threw a deep ball to Bailey).
 

Edmonton wouldn’t have scored anymore points because they didn’t when they actually needed to. They were down by a touchdown and still weren’t able to score when they absolutely needed to, so it’s fair to say that even trying their hardest to score they weren’t able to. If anything, their playcalling would have been more conservative with the lead just like ours was. 

Does this mean that the Bombers would have come back had they been down by seven? No, not necessarily. But they did score ten points after what may have been a Grymes pick six from fairly similar field position to where a good kick return could have gotten them, so it’s certainly not out of the question that they could have done that.  

These are pretty simple concepts to understand…

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

27 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 Give any other team, not named the Redblacks, that chance and they'll make the play 99 times out of 100.

Or named Bombers... cuz they dropped three interceptions and one of them was a pick 6.

Its football- it happens.

[wbbfan]

47 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I think Olivera missed a key block on one of the sacks.

I didn't see him wiff on any blocks but I'll put an eye on it when I rewatch the game. 

29 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

The Elks should not even have been tied at that point. 

The 2 point convert should have been blown dead as forward progress had stopped.

 

Grymes is a well respected talented player.

If you want go play "woulda coulda" on plays guys should have made that would have impacted the game I can show you about 40 missed tackles.

Despite that, their O still did **** all for yards or points.

That brutal blown rtp challenge took us from the red zone to punting and a fg for the elk too. 

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by wbbfan

[Bigblue204]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I didn't say the other game was last week. It was the Calgary game.

One of the two worst teams in the league coulda won if a DB simply catches a ball thrown right to him. Why? Cuz the blitz got to Collaros. Teams that are better than #8 will see that and use it.

The Grymes pick would have been a 147 point difference. 7 for them. -7 for us. The drive afterwards never would have happened. The Bombers would have scored 3 points instead of 10 which wouldn't have been enough,

I'm not suggesting the team is on the verge of collapse.

See my earlier comment.

Blitzing a QB is not some secret? Lol. If you blitz and blitz well you will usually win. Edmonton didn't discover this and other teams haven't ignored it. Edmonton has a good D and they played well.

If anyone showed the league how to beat the Bombers it was the team that actually did. Elks showed the league how to lose, again.

As for the grymes int. If that happens, you're again assuming the game would have played out like it did....which is weird. Bombers would have had to get more aggressive as would have the Elks D. To assume a 1 score game would have been over with even 5 minutes left (it was double that) is ridiculous in the CFL. I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion, but it honestly doesn't make sense. Maybe they do lose, but there was plenty of time for things to change multiple times.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Bigblue204

[do or die]

How many times have we sat around......and did the Ole would of, could of, might of, may of...after yet another Bomber loss?

Shoe sure fits better on the other foot...

 

 

[wbbfan]

52 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Blitzing a QB is not some secret? Lol. If you blitz and blitz well you will usually win. Edmonton didn't discover this and other teams haven't ignored it. Edmonton has a good D and they played well.

If anyone showed the league how to beat the Bombers it was the team that actually did. Elks showed the league how to lose, again.

As for the grymes int. If that happens, you're again assuming the game would have played out like it did....which is weird. Bombers would have had to get more aggressive as would have the Elks D. To assume a 1 score game would have been over with even 5 minutes left (it was double that) is ridiculous in the CFL. I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion, but it honestly doesn't make sense. Maybe they do lose, but there was plenty of time for things to change multiple times.

I think one of the biggest pitfalls in coaching is playing too passive. Bad teams play not to lose. Good teams play to win. Deep soft zone coverage and lack of pressure was the hallmark of our d when it wasn't great.

Football outsiders has an older but great article on passive soft defenses sucking. 

[17to85]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Why would you assume that we'd score a TD and a FG in the last 10 minutes while they didn't score any points, when we only scored 3?

How can you say they would have only scored 3? Collaros shook off the poor throw and immediately got the team into the endzone. How do we know that IF the elks got a touchdown on the int that collaros wouldn't have responded similarly? 

You can't play the what if game, there were still 10 minutes left that's an eternity in the cfl and the Bombers have proven themselves to be a tremendous 4th quarter team. Don't forget the Bombers dropped a pick 6 too. 

So no they didn't deserve to lose that game. You can stand up and pull your head outta your ass any time you like.

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Get used to Mourtada. MOS will keep him for the rest of the year. I just hope he doesn't cost us a playoff game.

Missing Hardwick caused huge pass pro problems.

Brady O was great and he better be, cuz Harris' injury looked bad to me.

Adams has regressed, but Bailey and Lawler have progressed to the point where it doesn't matter.

If Grymes could catch, we'd have lost the game.

Edmonton D showed the rest of the league how to beat us. Blitz, blitz, blitz and blitz.

This is the 2nd game we should have lost, but didn't. Good teams win ugly or just getting lucky?

 

I officially will admit that I was wrong in saying Noeller as Nasty Nate level of trolling ,  I retract my previous statement and apologize to  Noeller and 17to85  and officially give the Nasty Nate Heavyweight Trolling Belt to TBURGESS.

 

[Noeller]

24 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I officially will admit that I was wrong in saying Noeller as Nasty Nate level of trolling ,  I retract my previous statement and apologize to  Noeller and 17to85  and officially give the Nasty Nate Heavyweight Trolling Belt to TBURGESS.

 

Nah... Me trolling was posting a pic of getting my flu shot on FB to trigger the rural AB anti vaxxers. 

On here I'm pretty sincere.   

[kelownabomberfan]

5 hours ago, BBlink said:

We were the overwhelming favourites to win this game. From that standpoint, squeaking out a win doesn't seem great.

But we won back-to-back games (which can be difficult for any team), beat them in their own park twice and won all 3 games. From that standpoint, it sounds a lot better.

Edmonton may not be great, but they're not a free space and played a great game.

I for one remember how many years since I've been watching CFL that Commonwealth has been a graveyard for the Bombers.  It was dumb that we had to play them three times, almost back to back, but we did it.  Pretty much an impossible feat.  I'm glad we won't be seeing those guys again.  Buh-bye!

4 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

So Grymes would have scored a TD for sure but nothing else would have changed and we would have lost? Whose to say if he did do that, the Bombers don't mount a game tying TD drive?

If Grymes scores the TD, O'Shea would definitely say "That's it boys, we're done" and concede the game.  That's the kind of guy he is....

[Arnold_Palmer]

3 hours ago, do or die said:

How many times have we sat around......and did the Ole would of, could of, might of, may of...after yet another Bomber loss?

Shoe sure fits better on the other foot...

 

 

I would rather win ugly than loss pretty. 

[do or die]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

I officially will admit that I was wrong in saying Noeller as Nasty Nate level of trolling ,  I retract my previous statement and apologize to  Noeller and 17to85  and officially give the Nasty Nate Heavyweight Trolling Belt to TBURGESS.

 

You realize that comparing ANYONE to Nasty Nate/Lyle E. Style, constitutes grave insult indeed.........

[bearpants]

7 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I didn't say we're lucky to be in 1st place. I said we coulda lost 2 games that we won due to mistakes other teams made, not great plays our team made. I asked if those 2 games were luck or not. I'd call them 50-50 games so I'd expect us to win one and lose one, but we won both.

The game totally changed on that one play. It was a 14 point difference. One of our big plays was a 45+ yard reception right after the missed pick 6 when we, rightly, picked on Grymes who had just dropped it. That play doesn't happen if Grymes could catch. Why would you assume that we'd score a TD and a FG in the last 10 minutes while they didn't score any points, when we only scored 3?

Edmonton is a bottom feeder for a reason and one of those reasons is they can't make the big play when it's given to them. Give any other team, not named the Redblacks, that chance and they'll make the play 99 times out of 100.

To answer you first question… those two wins were not luck… the team (mostly offense) didn’t play well in either game but they made enough plays to win… good teams find ways to win…

I didn’t say the bombers were guaranteed to score anything… you said the game would be over with 11 mins left and the bombers down by seven… I said there was plenty of time for a comeback… and now you’re asking “why would I assume the D wouldn’t give up more points?”… do I really have to explain that one?… they only mentioned about 700 times on the broadcast how many points the bombers have surrendered in the fourth quarter this season… it’s certainly possible they could’ve have, but all else aside the elks didn’t even pass center field on offense in the fourth quarter… I’d bet on the Bombers D in that one…

if you’re dead set on the game is over with bombers down by 7 and 11 mins to play… then I guess I won't change you’re mind… I’m just saying you’re wrong…

[wbbfan]

Just now, bearpants said:

To answer you first question… those two wins were not luck… the team (mostly offense) didn’t play well in either game but they made enough plays to win… good teams find ways to win…

I didn’t say the bombers were guaranteed to score anything… you said the game would be over with 11 mins left and the bombers down by seven… I said there was plenty of time for a comeback… and now you’re asking “why would I assume the D wouldn’t give up more points?”… do I really have to explain that one?… they only mentioned about 700 times on the broadcast how many points the bombers have surrendered in the fourth quarter this season… it’s certainly possible they could’ve have, but all else aside the elks didn’t even pass center field on offense in the fourth quarter… I’d bet on the Bombers D in that one…

if you’re dead set on the game is over with bombers down by 7 and 11 mins to play… then I guess I won't change you’re mind… I’m just saying you’re wrong…

Bill belichick says luck is the residue of hard work. 

[bearpants]

7 hours ago, Geebrr said:

The Elks should not even have been tied at that point. 

The 2 point convert should have been blown dead as forward progress had stopped

It’s funny with everything else going on… we haven’t even argued about this…

I was watching and yelling at the TV… how ******* long are they going to let this go for… I cannot believe they let it go for so long after his momentum had clearly stopped… and then he appeared to fumble before breaking the plane… just an odd play that I still have no idea how Edm got two points out of…