3 stars plus hh bc kicked our @$$

[Booch]

12 minutes ago, voodoochylde said:

BC might be a better team (or at least a more balanced / even keeled team) this year WITHOUT Rourke than with him.

Let me explain - last year they were certainly explosive, were able to put up gaudy numbers and (if I'm being objective) were probably the most potent passing offence in the CFL up until Rourke went down.  With that said, Rourke was still a rookie.  He had his ups and downs.  Confidence (especially against us) was fickle and he was prone to making those rookie mistakes, the ones a seasoned quarterback wouldn't make.  Adams on the other hand has been around the block.  He's seen a lot.  Worked through a lot and while he's not a world beater, he has a very solid team around him.  He won't lose games or make the same mistakes a rookie might.  You won't get the highs but you won't get the lows either.  I genuinely think we are going to be hard pressed to keep pace with the Lions this year.

B.C is basically same team minus Rourke...and Oft injured Burnham....and the defense was basically same obne we owned all last yr...even with Brown playing in his start as he put up 30 if I remember correctly.

 

They were the better team yup last week...they came to play and fed it to us.....were we complacent....figured we had to just show up....or did we just have an off game?.....In my opinion and based on a whack of things I think it ws a case of we were right out-schemed and coached that game....were somewhat not taking them too highly, and yup...got a good fat serving of humble pie....was it a one off?...Most likely...are we the better team....i say yeah until B.C finishes higher than us, and knocks us out at end of the yr I tend to lean toward us...we shall see how season pans out....But we drop a deuce every year....hopefully that was the deuce

[kelownabomberfan]

8 minutes ago, Booch said:

B.C is basically same team minus Rourke...and Oft injured Burnham....and the defense was basically same obne we owned all last yr...even with Brown playing in his start as he put up 30 if I remember correctly.

 

They were the better team yup last week...they came to play and fed it to us.....were we complacent....figured we had to just show up....or did we just have an off game?.....In my opinion and based on a whack of things I think it ws a case of we were right out-schemed and coached that game....were somewhat not taking them too highly, and yup...got a good fat serving of humble pie....was it a one off?...Most likely...are we the better team....i say yeah until B.C finishes higher than us, and knocks us out at end of the yr I tend to lean toward us...we shall see how season pans out....But we drop a deuce every year....hopefully that was the deuce

Yes at least this year we don't have that same weird pressure to "go without a loss" all season.  It's done.  No perfect season.  Now just clinch first place again and let's get it done so that I can come out from Kelowna and freeze my arse off at the Western Final again...lol...

Edited June 26, 2023 by kelownabomberfan

[TBURGESS]

15 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

This is such a pants on head ******** comment to make. 

HAI GUYZ!!! TEH SKY IS BLUE!!!11!!1

 

BC played better than winnipeg did in the game, no ****... that's why winnipeg lost and BC won. That's not what anyone is arguing about. That wasn't the usual effort or execution level from many of the bomber players or coaches. THAT is what people are talking about. You can't deny that. The OL through 2 weeks was dominant and looked worse than the times we trotted out the likes of Skinny Dan Gyetvai at left tackle. But yeah must be totally just because of what BC was doing. sometimes guys have a stinker of a game. Did BC play well? yup they did. Did they look better than they would have because of some poor play from the Bombers? yup certainly happened too. 

Lack of execution on the Bombers part or was it that the Lions wouldn't let us execute any better than we did? 

Is it more likely that the Bombers all stunk at the same time, except our FG kicker who was perfect, or is it more likely that the Lions caused our stinkage? 

Is it likely that the OL that dominated Hamilton and SKN's D lines might not be good enough to dominate BC's D line?

[Noeller]

they were missing ******* Dom Rhymes, by far their best receiver....and STILL did that to us? That is all about the Bombers shitting their pants, plain and simple. I can not imagine that happening again. 

[Bigblue204]

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Lack of execution on the Bombers part or was it that the Lions wouldn't let us execute any better than we did? 

Is it more likely that the Bombers all stunk at the same time, except our FG kicker who was perfect, or is it more likely that the Lions caused our stinkage? 

Is it likely that the OL that dominated Hamilton and SKN's D lines might not be good enough to dominate BC's D line?

There was a significant difference in play calling on O. And I'm not entirely sure why. But the lack of bailey/demski out of the back field was baffling. The lack of adjustments to help Bryant against Betts was also frustrating. BC played well, but the Bombers play calling didn't do them any favors.

[Rod Black]

I don’t know if the hit to Schoen across the middle had any impact on our receivers through the contest.
maybe that set a tone. 

[TBURGESS]

The Bombers can't lose if they don't crap the bed is just a comforting lie that fans tell. 

The unpleasant truth is that the Lions beat us & it wasn't even close. 

 

[Jesse]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

they were missing ******* Dom Rhymes, by far their best receiver....and STILL did that to us? That is all about the Bombers shitting their pants, plain and simple. I can not imagine that happening again. 

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments (on both sides) I can remember seeing.

Whether you say the Lions played well or the Bombers played poorly, it's the same thing. 

[17to85]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The unpleasant truth is that the Lions beat us & it wasn't even close. 

You seen anyone denying that? The issue here is that you are pigheadely insisting that it was all the lions making the Bombers look like crap. As I've been saying for far too long, it can be both. Lions played well AND the Bombers played poor. That's usually how ass kickings happen. 

[Brandon]

7 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You seen anyone denying that? The issue here is that you are pigheadely insisting that it was all the lions making the Bombers look like crap. As I've been saying for far too long, it can be both. Lions played well AND the Bombers played poor. That's usually how ass kickings happen. 

My intrepretation of what he is trying to say is that he thinks the Bombers came out playing their A game and the Lions came out and played A+ and topped us.  

 

What I think most people on here are saying is that the Bombers gave an  F  or  D level effort and the Lions played a clean but not spectacular game (B) which against our F level effort made it easy for them.   

[17to85]

He is just doing his usual shtick where he can't recognize nuance and things are either black or white, and since the lions played well then they must simply have made the Bombers look bad.

[Booch]

Most times in my experience a good beat down is usually a combo of one team dropping an egg and the other firing on all cylinders for most part....and we have been on the other side of that on our beat downs of teams

The funny part of the BC game even tho we played like dogcrap...which we all agree...late in that game we were actually still in it...and could have won it ...so for all the warts ... uncharacteristic penalties...poor play/effort...it could have been way worse and more embarrassing...a point to consider when acting like we are headed to the basement...one point that is still glaring tho and an issue is our roster makeup and management...

[Mark F]

sorry.     tried to delete... cant.   oops.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Mark F

[Jpan85]

This kind of reminds me of the Patriots they would get blown out in a early season game everyone would panic or say the Patriots were done and they would go out the next week and destroy the team they were playing. 

 

[TBURGESS]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

He is just doing his usual shtick where he can't recognize nuance and things are either black or white, and since the lions played well then they must simply have made the Bombers look bad.

It's pure huberis to think that the Bombers can't be beaten unless they beat themselves. 

[bluebeliever]

15 hours ago, M.O.A.B. said:

you're probably one of Lawrence's relative. if you dont see how poorly he played in the first 3 games and the TDs he already given up, I dont know what game are you watching.

Deep breath.  I know we don't get better by deletion.  Who would you sign to replace him? Would would you play on the roster in front of him?  You're probably one of the guys that called for MOS and / or Hall's head 3 years ago.  Our back end has got roasted at time, he and other are struggling.  Give it time, get healthy and don't panic.

[Jpan85]

On to Montreal

[Booch]

yup wash the game away...one of 18 and we weren't going 18-0...nobody will...15-3 again is a tough task...for anyone let alone back to back.....and likely wasn't gonna happen. 

You have to remember teams when they come play us...are pulling out all the stops, and likely adding wrinkles to things we havn't seen before, and outside their norm to try and knock us down a peg....and usually in the previous games we looked so bad, the follow up match was the polar opposite.

Some players even said as much when we beat the Riders....in that they did some things they had never seen and was not what they expected, yet we won that one....likely as SASK is not a great/good team....I'm not overly concerned about a game I consider a one off....and almost feel a bit sorry for MTL as they may get the brunt of the team being a bit pissed....That being said....I still wanna see a better use of players and to better utilize the roster/PR and how we manage it for games

[17to85]

8 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

It's pure huberis to think that the Bombers can't be beaten unless they beat themselves. 

Anybody out there saying that? I see people saying the Bombers got their asses handed to them because they played a piss poor game. 

You on the other hand are out here saying the lions were the only factor in how the game unfolded as it did. And surprise! You're wrong again.

[TBURGESS]

55 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Anybody out there saying that? I see people saying the Bombers got their asses handed to them because they played a piss poor game. 

You on the other hand are out here saying the lions were the only factor in how the game unfolded as it did. And surprise! You're wrong again.

You are saying it. The highlighted part is the definition of they got beaten because they beat themselves. 

I on the other hand am saying the Lions beat them, and I'm right. Everyone knows it, but some don't want to admit it because it goes against their personal, blue goggles, chugging the Kool Aid, belief system. 

[Tracker]

I have no big problem with losing the game per se. Watching the Bomber offensive line get beaten or every. damned. play. and seeing the defensive backfield perform an impromptu version of a Keystone Kops fire drill is concerning. Montreal isn't the best team in the league, but they are showing signs of life. If the Bombers just squeak by them or (horrors) lose, there will be some tough questions that need to be answered.

[Jesse]

36 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

You are saying it. The highlighted part is the definition of they got beaten because they beat themselves. 

I on the other hand am saying the Lions beat them, and I'm right. Everyone knows it, but some don't want to admit it because it goes against their personal, blue goggles, chugging the Kool Aid, belief system. 

Nope, it’s just that both things can be true.

[Booch]

more often than not...unless a team is truly inferior...Hello Elks....a loss that is a quality beat down is a result of one team shooting the lights out and being what seems outmatched from a bad week of prep and more or less pissing the bed...99% of the time...sure there ae other factors that may come into play...injuries...cockiness....etc....but more often than not...it's that reason being argued about...Lions came to play...we shat the bed....from guys on the filed...coaches game plan and team roster

if this occurs now for game..after game....then yup...it's a problem and we have major holes/issues/talent questions.....I don't see that...and am not concerned....

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

Nope, it’s just that both things can be true.

Nope he's saying A happened because of B, not A happened because of B & C. 

[Jesse]

10 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Nope he's saying A happened because of B, not A happened because of B & C. 

Meh. Most are just content with saying A, B, and C all happened. 

Only a couple people are trying to argue this black and white scenario where one or the other happened.