3 stars plus hh arbloooows

[Stickem]

 1. Leggs and the defence

 

 

[JCon]

1. Liegghio. He made his and his counterpart didn't. 

2. Biggie. I'm sure he wears skates to move like he does. 

3. Thompson. 7 tackles and huge tackle on Special Teams.

HH - Rose. Pick-6. 

[Fatty Liver]

Malik Clements, stepped in for Wilson, had 6 tackles, 1 ST tackle, and a QB sack.

[Noeller]

now, again, I know nothing about everything.....but is it a good thing that Clements had 6 tackles, or does that mean they were picking on him repeatedly and forcing him to make tackles....?? 

[17to85]

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

now, again, I know nothing about everything.....but is it a good thing that Clements had 6 tackles, or does that mean they were picking on him repeatedly and forcing him to make tackles....?? 

Linebackers make tackles,  it's their job.

[kelownabomberfan]

HH:  Pinball for coming to the sidelines to end the ****-show on the Argos bench.  That was quite fun to watch.  "Speedy B" - what a piece of garbage that guy is.

Edited July 5, 2022 by kelownabomberfan

[Booch]

50 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Linebackers make tackles,  it's their job.

if he was to have had none...then I'd be concerned as that would mean he was not reading the play...flowing to the ball...and getting beat and in chase with receivers out of back field...we should be fine with him...you have to remember he isn't a rookie, and had what...5..6..7 starts last year?....and I think he actually has a lil more quickness to him than Kyrie

[17to85]

6 minutes ago, Booch said:

if he was to have had none...then I'd be concerned as that would mean he was not reading the play...flowing to the ball...and getting beat and in chase with receivers out of back field...we should be fine with him...you have to remember he isn't a rookie, and had what...5..6..7 starts last year?....and I think he actually has a lil more quickness to him than Kyrie

I actually thought he really stood out in the preseason as someone always around the ball and he seemed to be around the ball last night too. Should be able to handle things in my nonexpert opinion. Losing Wilson sucks but depth has always been the biggest strength of this team.

[Mr. Perfect]

5 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I actually thought he really stood out in the preseason as someone always around the ball and he seemed to be around the ball last night too. Should be able to handle things in my nonexpert opinion. Losing Wilson sucks but depth has always been the biggest strength of this team.

Agreed. Sucks to lose Wilson obviously, but Clements, from my eyes had a great preseason as well.

[Tracker]

Not sure if we are going to be able to accurately assess some of the player juggling because of the short week. I will be disappointed if we lose to BC but so long as don't get blown out, I can live with it.

[Potential]

Yeah, this is a perfect storm of short week and injuries which is making me think we might get our butts handed to us. 

Our offence is still a work in progress, so the only shot we have is our defense carrying the load (as they have for the better part of the past 2 seasons).

I will be pleasantly surprised if we can pull this one out, but am not expecting it.

[17to85]

Bunch of negative folks around here. The offense has made plays when they have needed to. They're running vanilla **** because it's July but if they need a drive they get a drive. 

The short week is a pain from preparation standpoint but the O can make things happen  and the D is not giving up many points and depth is the strength of the team. 

Keep the faith. I don't believe BC is a tough enough team to beat the Bombers.

[Booch]

26 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Bunch of negative folks around here. The offense has made plays when they have needed to. They're running vanilla **** because it's July but if they need a drive they get a drive. 

The short week is a pain from preparation standpoint but the O can make things happen  and the D is not giving up many points and depth is the strength of the team. 

Keep the faith. I don't believe BC is a tough enough team to beat the Bombers.

I tend to agree....we aren't making mistakes to kill ourselves, playing a safe reserved game for the most part, and it's allowing us to win...we are deep, right across the board, and know what it takes to win, and don't get rattled/flustered.

B.C as well....have played well, but also hadn't really seen a true test...I also don't think B.C has earned the chops yet to run with the big dawgs when the going gets tough....we're banged up...coming off a short week, and still not fitring on all cylinders, so gonna be a tough one.....but I can see a win, and even a convincing one....and if we do lose...it wont be an embarrasing joke of a loss like some teams have produced this year, and you wont hear us babbling about excuses....and having chips against us before game even started

[TBURGESS]

Both teams are looking to answer the same question. Are they a top team or just a team who has played bottom teams?

Both teams are playing against the best defence they've seen this year.

Both teams are playing against a good team for the first time this year. Do they rise to the occasion or does the pressure get to them? Can they up their game or not?

BC's got the home advantage and Winnipeg has the short week. If the Lions want to be number 1, they pretty much have to win this week.

 

[17to85]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Both teams are looking to answer the same question. Are they a top team or just a team who has played bottom teams?

The back to back Champs don't have to prove they are a top team. That's already known.

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The back to back Champs don't have to prove they are a top team. That's already known.

exactly....and it makes for tuff sledding...especially when said team is still trying to get the roster settled and get rolling, when every week the team you are facing is coming at you extremely hard...to try and unseat you...it's a marvel all things considered we sitting at 4-0....proof right there that we are still the team to beat

[TBURGESS]

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The back to back Champs don't have to prove they are a top team. That's already known.

Last year, it was known. This year, not so much.

The winner of the game gets first. The loser gets somewhere between 2nd and 4th depending on how the Riders and the Stamps do & I expect both of them to win.

A tight game and the loser gets 2nd, maybe 3rd. A blow out and the loser gets 4th.

[Booch]

9 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Last year, it was known. This year, not so much.

The winner of the game gets first. The loser gets somewhere between 2nd and 4th depending on how the Riders and the Stamps do & I expect both of them to win.

A tight game and the loser gets 2nd, maybe 3rd. A blow out and the loser gets 4th.

they will be 1 and 2 regardless....the team who has been in top spot all year...going into a cross continent short week with a myriad of injuries piling up...on the road won't get punted to 3rd  or 4th with a loss to another unbeaten team...thats just plain dumb...especially when the 2 3rd and 4th teams have been less than inspiring themselves...

[17to85]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Last year, it was known. This year, not so much.

The winner of the game gets first. The loser gets somewhere between 2nd and 4th depending on how the Riders and the Stamps do & I expect both of them to win.

A tight game and the loser gets 2nd, maybe 3rd. A blow out and the loser gets 4th.

Games in July don't mean **** when sorting who the top teams are. This time last season everyone was falling over themselves about the riders and the Bombers had lost to Toronto and barely beat calgary (on a missed kick no less) and had the same "oh they're not really a top team" crap. Bc being **** last year has to prove they are for real.  The Bombers don't. They're for real until such time as they amass a poor record.

[TBURGESS]

If Calgary wins, they're 4-0. That's 2nd place behind the other & 0 team. No way you have a 4-1 or a 3-1 team ahead of a 4-0 team.

[17to85]

22 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

If Calgary wins, they're 4-0. That's 2nd place behind the other & 0 team. No way you have a 4-1 or a 3-1 team ahead of a 4-0 team.

And who cares about ranking teams week to week? You are obsessed with power rankings apparently.  You think anyone goes into a game with the 2 time defending Champs thinking they're not a top team regardless of whether they're 5-0 or 4-1? Like I said, the Bombers are a top team and if they lose on a short week to BC that won't change anything. 

[Tracker]

8 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Bunch of negative folks around here. The offense has made plays when they have needed to. They're running vanilla **** because it's July but if they need a drive they get a drive. 

The short week is a pain from preparation standpoint but the O can make things happen  and the D is not giving up many points and depth is the strength of the team. 

Keep the faith. I don't believe BC is a tough enough team to beat the Bombers.

If these were the 2021 Bombers, they would have no trouble handling the 2022 Beastly Lions,  but they are not. The Bomber defence is a notch, maybe two below last year's edition, but the 2022 Bomber offence has been gawdawful.  Worse yet, although the defence is amping up, the offence is not improving. Would love to be wrong about this, but I think I am not. To win the defence would have to play a bit better than last game, and the offence will have to be WAY better.

[Brandon]

7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

The back to back Champs don't have to prove they are a top team. That's already known.

I don't know.... what do we really know about this Zach Collaros fellow and his 23  - 2 record as a starter for the Blue Bombers... I can't possibly make a judgement that he's a good qb and that the team will win or not with him. 

[Booch]

the key with this team, for most part very disciplined and rarely cripple or handcuff themselves with stupid penalties and selfish play, and also very rarely make mental errors and cough up the ball....smart, well coached and take that coaching into games and utilize it, and thats why we can win games where we played way below our level, or shouldn't have won...thats the key point here, and reason why I am not to concerned...especially here in July

[17to85]

10 hours ago, Brandon said:

I don't know.... what do we really know about this Zach Collaros fellow and his 23  - 2 record as a starter for the Blue Bombers... I can't possibly make a judgement that he's a good qb and that the team will win or not with him. 

God I wish they'd drop the 2 in that record. Left the game with a lead and Brown lost that game. 23-1 is the real collaros record.