Which Vets do we cut next season

[Goalie]

2 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

It was different, the previous season the receivers remained healthy through the playoffs, but Zach didn't.

Zach was banged up and our kicker sucked  

This year our receivers were banged up. Yes could have played apparent all stars from the PR but didn't. 

[17to85]

You can dress one receiver who can't run, you can't start 3. 

[GCn20]

18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You can dress one receiver who can't run, you can't start 3. 

Can't run? I saw them all running. There is no doubt that Bailey/Demski/Schoen were not 100% but they weren't out there on crutches either. Yea some of the their routes had to be ditched, but let's not exaggerate they were in the game at 80%. I am not sure that Ambles at 100% is better than any of those 3 at 80%. Would it have been different if all 3 were 100%? For sure it would have been and it sucks that we had injuries at that time. However. we still managed to move the ball quite well. We just didn't finish at all.

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

Same with Roosevelt the year before, never played a snap.

Nor should he have.

52 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Stop ******* insulting Kevin Glenn. Fajardo is this generations Nealon Greene.

Ok...fair enough.

50 minutes ago, Booch said:

That's some A1 roster usage

Who would you have liked to see Roosevelt replace and explain how that would have been A1 roster usage. There was literally no opportunity for Roosevelt to play at all. Our receivers were healthy all year and BOLO needed playing time.

Edited December 4, 2023 by GCn20

[Booch]

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

It was different, the previous season the receivers remained healthy through the playoffs, but Zach didn't.

I'm more talking in general terms

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Zach was banged up and our kicker sucked  

This year our receivers were banged up. Yes could have played apparent all stars from the PR but didn't. 

didnt need to be allstars....just healthy and capable.....

48 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Can't run? I saw them all running. There is no doubt that Bailey/Demski/Schoen were not 100% but they weren't out there on crutches either. Yea some of the their routes had to be ditched, but let's not exaggerate they were in the game at 80%. I am not sure that Ambles at 100% is better than any of those 3 at 80%. Would it have been different if all 3 were 100%? For sure it would have been and it sucks that we had injuries at that time. However. we still managed to move the ball quite well. We just didn't finish at all.

Nor should he have.

Ok...fair enough.

Who would you have liked to see Roosevelt replace and explain how that would have been A1 roster usage. There was literally no opportunity for Roosevelt to play at all. Our receivers were healthy all year and BOLO needed playing time.

Ellingson...who did nothing...and got....re-injured

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, Booch said:

I'm more talking in general terms

didnt need to be allstars....just healthy and capable.....

Ellingson...who did nothing...and got....re-injured

We still didn't need to activate Roosevelt. Had better options.

[Booch]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

We still didn't need to activate Roosevelt. Had better options.

which made/makes things even more annoying

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, Booch said:

which made/makes things even more annoying

Does it also annoy you when you pay for insurance but your house doesn't burn down?

[Booch]

24 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Does it also annoy you when you pay for insurance but your house doesn't burn down?

No...but when it's burning u use it...we flat out put 4 guys out there who couldn't perform when we had 4 healthy fresh bodies...for no other reason than our coach doing them a solid for a lack of a better term

Many here say ..claim other guys were prob not ideal....but they are pro athletes and if ignored would have roasted mtl...and if they actually garnered the attention...would have made BO and Lawlers role that much more effective 

[Mike]

What makes me laugh about this the most is guys like @GCn20 claimed all year that we were the most talented.

Now we lost. And the same guys are telling us our coaching staff did nothing wrong.

If we were the most talented and no mistakes were made, why did we lose? 

[TrueBlue4ever]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

If we were the most talented and no mistakes were made, why did we lose? 

Because mistakes were made, no one claimed differently. Zach’s INT and Brady’s fumble, for example,  are two mistakes that almost certainly cost us points that would have made the difference. 

[Jesse]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

What makes me laugh about this the most is guys like @GCn20 claimed all year that we were the most talented.

Now we lost. And the same guys are telling us our coaching staff did nothing wrong.

If we were the most talented and no mistakes were made, why did we lose? 

Literally no one has claimed no mistakes were made. 

****, man. It's the championship game, loser goes home, the win is not guaranteed to go to "the most talented team". 

[GCn20]

7 hours ago, Mike said:

What makes me laugh about this the most is guys like @GCn20 claimed all year that we were the most talented.

Now we lost. And the same guys are telling us our coaching staff did nothing wrong.

If we were the most talented and no mistakes were made, why did we lose? 

What makes me laugh about guys like MIke is that they think talent can't make mistakes. One is not exclusive of the other. 

Also, I think I've been very consistently saying that I thought Buck and Hall called a horrible game and the non usage of BOOL and McCrae was a mistake.

There was literally only one way the Bombers could lose the Grey Cup and that was by making mistakes and they did. We were the more talented team, I don't think that's even up for debate, and we gave the game away.

Edited December 5, 2023 by GCn20

[rebusrankin]

8 hours ago, Mike said:

What makes me laugh about this the most is guys like @GCn20 claimed all year that we were the most talented.

Now we lost. And the same guys are telling us our coaching staff did nothing wrong.

If we were the most talented and no mistakes were made, why did we lose? 

League wide conspiracy lead by Ambroise and Suitor.

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Because mistakes were made, no one claimed differently. Zach’s INT and Brady’s fumble, for example,  are two mistakes that almost certainly cost us points that would have made the difference. 

A team severely handicaps it's chances to win when they turn the ball over 3 times in the red zone against a red hot defense. We can talk about roster usage, or play calling and it is opinion whether it would make a difference in winning or losing. What isn't opinion is what we absolutely know took points off the board (turnovers deep in the red zone) and what gave Montreal points ( blown coverages extending drives). This was a tightly contested game that came down to 4-5 plays of which we were on the wrong end of all of them. Whether we agree with roster usage or not, the team we fielded would have won that game if we play clean ball. We didn't. 

Some here want to blame the entire loss on coaching mistakes, and that is just tunnel vision on their part. Was it a factor? For sure. A big factor? Not nearly as big as they are claiming.

Edited December 5, 2023 by GCn20

[JohnnyAbonny]

50 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

A team severely handicaps it's chances to win when they turn the ball over 3 times in the red zone against a red hot defense. We can talk about roster usage, or play calling and it is opinion whether it would make a difference in winning or losing. What isn't opinion is what we absolutely know took points off the board (turnovers deep in the red zone) and what gave Montreal points ( blown coverages extending drives). This was a tightly contested game that came down to 4-5 plays of which we were on the wrong end of all of them. Whether we agree with roster usage or not, the team we fielded would have won that game if we play clean ball. We didn't. 

Some here want to blame the entire loss on coaching mistakes, and that is just tunnel vision on their part. Was it a factor? For sure. A big factor? Not nearly as big as they are claiming.

Agree with the point about redzone turnovers.

The critical blown coverages probably wouldn’t have happened with Rose on the field. The season-long roster management issues did cost us big time. 

I’d give equal weight to both as factors in the loss. 

[17to85]

Coaches were ****, roster management was **** and players made too many mistakes. It's never one thing, but make no mistake the roster mismanagement led to mistakes by players.

[Fatty Liver]

4 hours ago, GCn20 said:

A team severely handicaps it's chances to win when they turn the ball over 3 times in the red zone against a red hot defense. We can talk about roster usage, or play calling and it is opinion whether it would make a difference in winning or losing. What isn't opinion is what we absolutely know took points off the board (turnovers deep in the red zone) and what gave Montreal points ( blown coverages extending drives). This was a tightly contested game that came down to 4-5 plays of which we were on the wrong end of all of them. Whether we agree with roster usage or not, the team we fielded would have won that game if we play clean ball. We didn't. 

Some here want to blame the entire loss on coaching mistakes, and that is just tunnel vision on their part. Was it a factor? For sure. A big factor? Not nearly as big as they are claiming.

You keep mentioning 3 turnovers, I recall one fumble and one interception, what was the other?

[GCn20]

46 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

You keep mentioning 3 turnovers, I recall one fumble and one interception, what was the other?

Oops you are right. My bad. Must be PTSD

[Fatty Liver]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Oops you are right. My bad. Must be PTSD

I thought maybe the final play of the game could be considered a turnover, not sure how they classified that play.

[GCn20]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Coaches were ****, roster management was **** and players made too many mistakes. It's never one thing, but make no mistake the roster mismanagement led to mistakes by players.

It may have, but that's purely speculation. 

5 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

Agree with the point about redzone turnovers.

The critical blown coverages probably wouldn’t have happened with Rose on the field. The season-long roster management issues did cost us big time. 

I’d give equal weight to both as factors in the loss. 

You say the blown coverages wouldn't have happened with Rose on the field. That might be true or might not be. That is opinion and speculation.

I also give the blown coverages a big part of the blame but certainly don't weigh them evenly with the turnovers as we could have still kept points off the board on all but one.

Edited December 5, 2023 by GCn20

[17to85]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

It may have, but that's purely speculation

I dunno, having 3 gimped receivers and collaros forcing a throw to the one guy who's healthy and the als can focus on doesn't lead to an interception?

Having to move 3 guys around in the secondary to deal with 1 injury doesn't lead to a bust in coverage and a td against? 

[BBlink]

When healthy we are far and away the better team. Montreal was red hot and extremely healthy. We dressed 3 receivers that couldn't make near the impact they would have if they were healthy. And then on top of that we turned the ball over in key situations and our defensive game plan was bad.

It ******* sucks but looking forward to next year.

[GCn20]

19 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I dunno, having 3 gimped receivers and collaros forcing a throw to the one guy who's healthy and the als can focus on doesn't lead to an interception?

Having to move 3 guys around in the secondary to deal with 1 injury doesn't lead to a bust in coverage and a td against? 

Having 3 gimped receivers doesn't force Collaros to do anything. He could have seen the over/under coverage and decided to simply tuck and run to preserve the FG, or he could have looked to another receiver (Demski) that was wide open on the play or maybe our OC could have trusted our RB from 1st and goal at the 8. Convenient you failed to mention the impact of roster management on the Brady fumble that could have sealed the game.

Having 3 guys in the secondary moving around absolutely does not automatically equate to a bust in coverage. Neither are certainties, and both are mental mistakes by the players on the field that were 100% avoidable and certainly not inevitable.

16 hours ago, BBlink said:

When healthy we are far and away the better team. Montreal was red hot and extremely healthy. We dressed 3 receivers that couldn't make near the impact they would have if they were healthy. And then on top of that we turned the ball over in key situations and our defensive game plan was bad.

It ******* sucks but looking forward to next year.

Basically yea. We got nicked up at the wrong time of year and did not play with the mental focus we needed to play with.

Edited December 6, 2023 by GCn20

[17to85]

Man you make a lot of excuses for everyone. Bomber have been a good team for a lot of years,  but you can't just sit on your ass and expect it to continue. They gambled hard on rolling with an aging roster last season, it almost paid off but in the end did not. They can't do that again. Need a serious infusion of talented impactful youth in a lotnof areas or we will just watch it slip further and further away. 

[Booch]

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Man you make a lot of excuses for everyone. Bomber have been a good team for a lot of years,  but you can't just sit on your ass and expect it to continue. They gambled hard on rolling with an aging roster last season, it almost paid off but in the end did not. They can't do that again. Need a serious infusion of talented impactful youth in a lotnof areas or we will just watch it slip further and further away. 

we need to add some hungry new blood to the core thats still practical keeping....guys who havnt been there before and want it bad