2022 CFL Season - Back 2 Back Champs News

[TBURGESS]

27 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

Something has changed with you recently. You used to be better and this stuff. Are you all good?

Explain to me how these above .500 teams got to their record if not for playing each other - and someone having to win. 
 

You're trying to change the discussion to things I'm not saying for $500 GeeBrr.

The only point is that we're playing better teams in the 2nd half than we did in the first half.

Explain to me how it's harder to play 1, 2 and 3 win teams than it is to play 5 thru 7 win teams.

[Geebrr]

14 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're trying to change the discussion to things I'm not saying for $500 GeeBrr.

The only point is that we're playing better teams in the 2nd half than we did in the first half.

Explain to me how it's harder to play 1, 2 and 3 win teams than it is to play 5 thru 7 win teams.

Objectively, We have played better against better teams. 

Our best games have been against Calgary and BC and it is clear this team has an easier time getting ready to go against them.  Playing these bum teams can be hard - because emotionally you have a harder time getting up for them. 

Plus no more short weeks, byes, and more home games. 

 

 

[Goldkobra]

20 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're trying to change the discussion to things I'm not saying for $500 GeeBrr.

The only point is that we're playing better teams in the 2nd half than we did in the first half.

Explain to me how it's harder to play 1, 2 and 3 win teams than it is to play 5 thru 7 win teams.

You're more likely to encounter teams with 1, 2, or 3 wins in the first half of the season than you are in the second. 

[Dr Zaius]

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

In the first half of the season we played 2 teams/3 games against +.500 teams. The tough part of the season is ahead of us, not behind us.

You can't possibly believe this 

[wbbfan]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

Calgary  - 1 

Saskatchewan   - 3

Hamilton  - 1

Edmonton - 1

BC - 2  

So 3 tough games and 5 easy games is a tough part of the schedule?

Plus 3 byes in that stretch more home games than road and ba getting off the ir. 

41 minutes ago, Dr Zaius said:

You can't possibly believe this 

Contrarian gonna be contrarian 

[17to85]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

know folks around here hate the Riders, but you've got to admit they're better than most of the teams we played in the first half of the season.

Who have they beaten? They came out of the cream puff part of their schedule 5-4....

[wbbfan]

Just now, 17to85 said:

Who have they beaten? They came out of the cream puff part of their schedule 5-4....

They have no ol no pass game 2nd fewest first downs 2nd fewest total yards 5th in points for in the 4/5/6 dear heat for points allowed most penalties against by a lot etc. they are good at running the ball getting sacks and have been Stupid lucky with getting fumble bounces. They’ve also allowed the most sacks they have 1 win against the west division and are plus 8 in pf pa. We are plus 88 bc is plus 119 and Calgary is plus 56. 
 

to put their line play into perspective they are -1 in sacks for against. We are plus 5 in more games played. They give up .8 yards per completion more than they gain. We gain 1.2 yards more per pass than we give up. They give up 13.1 higher qbr against than we do. They gain 1.2 more ypc than they give up but the worst second down conversion by a mile they give up 8.5 % higher conversion while we convert at a 6.4% higher rate. which is a gigantic head to head difference. 38% second down conversion to 54% on offense. 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

They have no ol no pass game 2nd fewest first downs 2nd fewest total yards 5th in points for in the 4/5/6 dear heat for points allowed most penalties against by a lot etc. they are good at running the ball getting sacks and have been Stupid lucky with getting fumble bounces. They’ve also allowed the most sacks they have 1 win against the west division and are plus 8 in pf pa. We are plus 88 bc is plus 119 and Calgary is plus 56. 
 

to put their line play into perspective they are -1 in sacks for against. We are plus 5 in more games played. They give up .8 yards per completion more than they gain. We gain 1.2 yards more per pass than we give up. They give up 13.1 higher qbr against than we do. They gain 1.2 more ypc than they give up but the worst second down conversion by a mile they give up 8.5 % higher conversion while we convert at a 6.4% higher rate. which is a gigantic head to head difference. 38% second down conversion to 54% on offense. 

And if we go by the have they beat the good teams criteria I think they are 0-1 against bc and haven't played winnipeg or calgary yet.

[WBBFanWest]

Lol, you guys... Every time he does this, you give him exactly the reaction he's hoping for.  The contrarian is being contrary?  Same old schtick.  Nothing to see here

 

[TBURGESS]

14 hours ago, Geebrr said:

Objectively, We have played better against better teams. 

Our best games have been against Calgary and BC and it is clear this team has an easier time getting ready to go against them.  Playing these bum teams can be hard - because emotionally you have a harder time getting up for them. 

Plus no more short weeks, byes, and more home games. 
 

We've absolutely played down to the level of the poor teams and played our best against the other two top teams. That doesn't change the fact that most of the teams we've played have been bottom tier teams or that we play more mid & top tier teams in the 2nd half. (Tier 1 - Bombers, Lions & Stamps, Tier 2 - Riders & Argos, Tier 3 - The rest.)

I disagree with your theory that it's hard to 'get up' for bad teams making it harder to win against them. If that was true, then bad teams would win more often because the other teams didn't 'get up' for them, turning them into better teams. It's simpler than that, bad teams are easier to beat because they're bad.

14 hours ago, Dr Zaius said:

You can't possibly believe this 

We've mostly played bad teams so far and we're mostly playing better teams going forward. What's not to believe about that?

14 hours ago, Goldkobra said:

You're more likely to encounter teams with 1, 2, or 3 wins in the first half of the season than you are in the second. 

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't good teams. Lets double the wins to 2-6, non of those teams make the playoffs.

 

14 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Who have they beaten? They came out of the cream puff part of their schedule 5-4....

Why can can see that the Riders have played bad teams, but you can't see that Bombers have too? This is exactly the same argument that I'm making.

[TrueBlue4ever]

1 hour ago, WBBFanWest said:

Lol, you guys... Every time he does this, you give him exactly the reaction he's hoping for.  The contrarian is being contrary?  Same old schtick.  Nothing to see here

 

Maybe they enjoy being triggered?

[17to85]

19 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

We've absolutely played down to the level of the poor teams and played our best against the other two top teams. That doesn't change the fact that most of the teams we've played have been bottom tier teams or that we play more mid & top tier teams in the 2nd half. (Tier 1 - Bombers, Lions & Stamps, Tier 2 - Riders & Argos, Tier 3 - The rest.)

I disagree with your theory that it's hard to 'get up' for bad teams making it harder to win against them. If that was true, then bad teams would win more often because the other teams didn't 'get up' for them, turning them into better teams. It's simpler than that, bad teams are easier to beat because they're bad.

We've mostly played bad teams so far and we're mostly playing better teams going forward. What's not to believe about that?

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't good teams. Lets double the wins to 2-6, non of those teams make the playoffs.

 

Why can can see that the Riders have played bad teams, but you can't see that Bombers have too? This is exactly the same argument that I'm making.

Winnipeg is 3-0 against the good teams, Saskatchewan  is 0-1.... so yay Saskatchewan because they lost to more shitty teams and beat less good ones than the Bombers? 

[Jesse]

33 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

We've absolutely played down to the level of the poor teams and played our best against the other two top teams. That doesn't change the fact that most of the teams we've played have been bottom tier teams or that we play more mid & top tier teams in the 2nd half. (Tier 1 - Bombers, Lions & Stamps, Tier 2 - Riders & Argos, Tier 3 - The rest.)

I disagree with your theory that it's hard to 'get up' for bad teams making it harder to win against them. If that was true, then bad teams would win more often because the other teams didn't 'get up' for them, turning them into better teams. It's simpler than that, bad teams are easier to beat because they're bad.

We've mostly played bad teams so far and we're mostly playing better teams going forward. What's not to believe about that?

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't good teams. Lets double the wins to 2-6, non of those teams make the playoffs.

 

Why can can see that the Riders have played bad teams, but you can't see that Bombers have too? This is exactly the same argument that I'm making.

Do you place no value on playing for 10 straight weeks, mostly on the road, sometimes on short rest and practicing once per week?

Because if you're just looking at the opponents in a vacuum, you're missing quite a bit of the equation.

 

EDIT:

Also, looking at the schedule, what’s harder about the second half?

We played Cal twice and BC once.

Now we play BC twice and Cal once.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Jesse

[JohnnyAbonny]

I really don’t think the difference between the good and bad teams is as great as some of you think. 
Intangibles, QBs and coaching sure, but the base talent level of the other players isn’t all that far apart. 
 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Jesse said:

EDIT:

Also, looking at the schedule, what’s harder about the second half?

We played Cal twice and BC once.

Now we play BC twice and Cal once.

In his mind the riders eking out a barely over .500 record halfway through the season playing poor teams means they're a tough opponent. 

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Winnipeg is 3-0 against the good teams, Saskatchewan  is 0-1.... so yay Saskatchewan because they lost to more shitty teams and beat less good ones than the Bombers? 

You're almost there. 3-0 against good teams means we've played good teams 3 times, which is what I've been saying all along.

1 hour ago, Jesse said:

Do you place no value on playing for 10 straight weeks, mostly on the road, sometimes on short rest and practicing once per week?

Because if you're just looking at the opponents in a vacuum, you're missing quite a bit of the equation.

 

EDIT:

Also, looking at the schedule, what’s harder about the second half?

We played Cal twice and BC once.

Now we play BC twice and Cal once.

I place less value on 10 straight weeks than I do on 3 out of 10 weeks playing against a +.500 team.

I've answered the EDIT question  a bunch of times already. Go back and read my posts again if you want.

Edited August 16, 2022 by TBURGESS

[17to85]

21 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You're almost there. 3-0 against good teams means we've played good teams 3 times, which is what I've been saying all along.

And you're still stuck in the driveway. Nothing about what the riders have done makes them a tough opponent so it is still that same number of "tough" weeks on the remaining schedule with the added bonus of more rest for the Bombers. Easier schedule. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

Labour day game has traditionally always been a tough game. 

[JCon]

We beat the best the teams in the league. We are the best team in the league. We have the best record. We own even own the tiebreaker to the one team we lost to. We completed the first half of our schedule unbeaten. 

Only the most pathethic person would argue against this. 

11 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Labour day game has traditionally always been a tough game. 

For Labour Day, you throw out the records and just let the teams fight it out. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

We beat the best the teams in the league. We are the best team in the league. We have the best record. We own even own the tiebreaker to the one team we lost to. We completed the first half of our schedule unbeaten. 

Only the most pathethic person would argue against this. 

No one was to begin with, but thanks for your line in the sand. 

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

No one was to begin with, but thanks for your line in the sand. 

Thanks for your input. Always look forward to it. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

Well, thanks very much for the kind words. 🙂

Edited August 16, 2022 by TrueBlue4ever

[Stickem]

After our bye we play Cal. at home who are coming here on a short week.....We should be rested and anxious to put that last game far behind us.....Bo and company most likely not relishing that one but a nice way for us to re-start the rest of the season

[Jesse]

30 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Labour day game has traditionally always been a tough game. 

But again, that's not the opponent, that's due to other factors Tburg is arguing as irrelevant. 

[Noeller]

13 minutes ago, Stickem said:

After our bye we play Cal. at home who are coming here on a short week.....We should be rested and anxious to put that last game far behind us.....Bo and company most likely not relishing that one but a nice way for us to re-start the rest of the season

how'd that work out when the roles were reversed last time? Not saying you're wrong, just saying I don't put as much stock into that scenario necessarily being to our benefit...