GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Just now, Booch said: yup....thats what it is all about...opinions...and worthy discussion over the winter....and the old shoulda woulda couda syndrome... I as well am more than happy how things have gone last 5.6 yrs, and see it easily maintained....I am also a perfectionist to a degree...so adequate...good enough...looking back at success just doesn't cut it for me ....I look at your last performances, and over last 2...I see imperfection and failing to achieve the goal...I want more! lol I want more too. Way more....much much more. I am a greedy pig when it comes to winning.
Booch Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 4 minutes ago, GCn20 said: I want more too. Way more....much much more. I am a greedy pig when it comes to winning. I'd cross check my mother into the boards to win hahaha...I'm a lil intense....but served me well HardCoreBlue 1
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Goalie said: And it looks like I'm the queen 😁 Edited February 9 by Wanna-B-Fanboy
HardCoreBlue Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 1 hour ago, 17to85 said: Fact is that bighill is barely fast enough these days when 100%. Dinged at all his play drops off a cliff. Should have been out 100%. And schoen wasn't practicing at all... another should have been outm and Bailey was clearly hurt, should have been sat. But really with the receivers you want to play one dinged guy fine, but you can't do 3. The other part I look at is the depth guys and what that says to them, i.e., 'that guy over there is better than you at 100% and him at 50%-70%.
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: The other part I look at is the depth guys and what that says to them, i.e., 'that guy over there is better than you at 100% and him at 50%-70%. It's a guessing game really. Is Schoen at 70% better than BOLO at 100%....I guess we'll never know now, but hindsight would suggest he couldn't have been worse. Thing is at the time, if I were coach, I probably go with Schoen too just because if adrenaline can take that 70% up to 80% then there is no contest. It just didn't work out well in the end, no denying that, but the decision itself could go either way really.
17to85 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hurt receivers is too much. That's the bottom line. wbbfan 1
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Just now, 17to85 said: 3 hurt receivers is too much. That's the bottom line. Yes, it was most unfortunate timing.
JohnnyAbonny Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 21 minutes ago, 17to85 said: 3 hurt receivers is too much. That's the bottom line. Could have had another receiver rostered all year if a certain fullback wasn’t around. Name and rank escape me. Edited February 9 by JohnnyAbonny Mark H., Noeller, BigBlueFanatic and 1 other 4
Fatty Liver Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 17 minutes ago, 17to85 said: 3 hurt receivers is too much. That's the bottom line. Demski played okay, but it was clear he didn't have the overall speed he exhibited earlier in the season when Zach was hitting him on those homerun throws.
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 24 minutes ago, JohnnyAbonny said: Could have had another receiver rostered all year if a certain fullback wasn’t around. Name and rank escape me. Who would that receiver have been? Only name that comes to mind is that dude that did just awful in the one game we rostered him. I guess we could have activated Ambles but he was only in town for a couple weeks and the playbook would have had to be reduced or the QB just doesn't look his way, which kinda defeats the purpose. Edited February 9 by GCn20 Jesse 1
Booch Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 9 minutes ago, GCn20 said: Who would that receiver have been? Only name that comes to mind is that dude that did just awful in the one game we rostered him. I guess we could have activated Ambles but he was only in town for a couple weeks and the playbook would have had to be reduced or the QB just doesn't look his way, which kinda defeats the purpose. Ambles would have been here long enough..and in been in league long enough to run plays....he would have had to been covered tho regardless as he would have had been a legit threat...Bailey and Schoen after the firt quarter garned next to no real attention...just light coverage soft coverage... Alston I sure as well would have looked better in second game, and as well had to been respected Sadly not even giving BOLO a snap likely was the final straw that broke that camels back and he goes elsewhere ...even for comparable money Noeller and bigg jay 1 1
JohnnyAbonny Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 18 minutes ago, GCn20 said: Who would that receiver have been? Only name that comes to mind is that dude that did just awful in the one game we rostered him. I guess we could have activated Ambles but he was only in town for a couple weeks and the playbook would have had to be reduced or the QB just doesn't look his way, which kinda defeats the purpose. I was mostly kidding. Hypothetically though the chain reaction of better roster use could have had someone more game ready/developed ready to come in. Noeller 1
MOBomberFan Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Losing BOLO will bite us in the ass about as much as losing Danny Vandervoort did... not the least bit. Canadian receivers... ick. Noeller and bluedawg 1 1
Fatty Liver Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said: Losing BOLO will bite us in the ass about as much as losing Danny Vandervoort did... not the least bit. Canadian receivers... ick. Wrong Danny, I think you meant Petermann. MOBomberFan and wbbfan 1 1
17to85 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 4 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said: Losing BOLO will bite us in the ass about as much as losing Danny Vandervoort did... not the least bit. Canadian receivers... ick. BOLO IMO was the bes5 kept secret in the league. That guy can play and was a shame that with everybody hurt he didn't get used in the Grey cup. wbbfan, Booch and Noeller 2 1
MOBomberFan Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 1 minute ago, Fatty Liver said: Wrong Danny, I think you meant Petermann. Ah yes, right you are!
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) 19 minutes ago, 17to85 said: BOLO IMO was the bes5 kept secret in the league. That guy can play and was a shame that with everybody hurt he didn't get used in the Grey cup. Gimme a break. best kept secret in the league. lol. Yea...he was so good that we dared not play him nearly all season for fear that the secret of his dominance would be revealed. He was developing nicely but show me what production makes you feel he was the best kept secret in the league. That is straight hyperbole. Let's not make him into a superstar that we held out of the lineup because he isn't. He is a guy that arguably may have offered a slight upgrade over an injured player in hindsight. Is the argument du jour that playing BOLO more over Bailey would have won us the Grey Cup? Edited February 9 by GCn20 3rdand1.5, Jesse and roddy315 1 1 1
Noeller Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 Count me in for not wanting to lose BOLO. Also hate to lose Bailey, but if he moves on to get a bigger paycheque and a higher profile, then BOLO should be in his spot getting regular reps. rebusrankin and wbbfan 2
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, Noeller said: Count me in for not wanting to lose BOLO. Also hate to lose Bailey, but if he moves on to get a bigger paycheque and a higher profile, then BOLO should be in his spot getting regular reps. Agreed. He's earned more reps.
Fatty Liver Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 29 minutes ago, Noeller said: Count me in for not wanting to lose BOLO. Also hate to lose Bailey, but if he moves on to get a bigger paycheque and a higher profile, then BOLO should be in his spot getting regular reps. It would be pretty sad to lose Bailey and other B and C grade players like Clements and Gauthier, as it wouldn't cost much to retain them and their contributions are unheralded but significant.
17to85 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hours ago, GCn20 said: Gimme a break. best kept secret in the league. lol. Yea...he was so good that we dared not play him nearly all season for fear that the secret of his dominance would be revealed. He was developing nicely but show me what production makes you feel he was the best kept secret in the league. That is straight hyperbole. Let's not make him into a superstar that we held out of the lineup because he isn't. He is a guy that arguably may have offered a slight upgrade over an injured player in hindsight. Is the argument du jour that playing BOLO more over Bailey would have won us the Grey Cup? you're one obtuse person... best kept secret doesn't mean he was intentionally held back. Just means that in my opinion (which is what IMO means...) is that the guy if given an opportunity could produce very well. And that's based on the few showings he has had. So yes I would rather a player who has shown glimpses over guys who can't play because they're hurt. This idea you have that the coaches make no mistakes is awful. Our coaches regularly dress players who don't take 1 single snap in a game. They waste roster spaces all the time. BigBlueFanatic, Rex_Banner and Noeller 2 1
GCn20 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 2 hours ago, 17to85 said: you're one obtuse person... best kept secret doesn't mean he was intentionally held back. Just means that in my opinion (which is what IMO means...) is that the guy if given an opportunity could produce very well. And that's based on the few showings he has had. So yes I would rather a player who has shown glimpses over guys who can't play because they're hurt. This idea you have that the coaches make no mistakes is awful. Our coaches regularly dress players who don't take 1 single snap in a game. They waste roster spaces all the time. I never once stated that coaches don't make mistakes. Every single coach ever has made mistakes. You are being obtuse suggesting that. BOLO may or may not turn out to be an excellent receiver and I hope he does. I, also stated that not playing BOLO was a mistake in hindsight. Hindsight makes it extremely easy to point out mistakes and that is my point entirely. I don't think playing BOLO would have any significant impact on that game, you do, neither of us can prove each other wrong as it is opinion. I am simply pointing out that many coaches play banged up players in hopes that they can fight through their injuries in a big game. You guys are trying to make it sound like this is some kind of flaw fatale of MOS when in reality it is coaching SOP. In game, our coaching was atrocious. Our coordinators were thoroughly taken behind the woodshed all game long. That was my biggest gripe with our coaching that far exceeded any roster mistakes made. We game planned poorly, we adapted poorly, and yes we clung to some injured starters too long in game. All coaching mistakes, no doubt about it. I just think you guys pinning it all on MOS is a massive red herring that lets some piss poor coordinating and individual player performances off the hook for that loss. Does someone disagreeing with your OPINION after careful consideration of it make them obtuse? You are talking like your opinion is fact but have no way of demonstrating it as such because it is strictly opinion. Disagreeing with someone else's unprovable theory is not being obtuse. bb1 1
MOBomberFan Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 I firmly believe (but can't possibly know for sure) that if we started a guy like BOLO or Ambles over an injured Schoen and still lost, many here would be saying we should have played Schoen as he is better at 70% than those guys at 100%... and imo that's probably even accurate. Many here, myself included, were lead to believe that Schoen was only nicked and could have played through it if he needed to. Imagine the outcry if Osh benched a "nicked up and ready to play if he needed to" Schoen and then we still lost... the horror Fwiw, I do remember Schoen saying that he was surprised he got the go-ahead to play, and to me that says a lot. The staff, all of them not just Osh, had immense faith in him when it seems they should have known better. Mistakes were made on and off the field. ddanger, bb1, Fatty Liver and 2 others 5
ddanger Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 3 hours ago, Goalie said: Grown men going on about stuff that happened months ago. You got the one guy who won’t be happy unless he’s the coach, you got others pretending they weren’t sauced watching the game on the TV. Seems fitting. The snow glows white on the mountain tonight Not a footprint to be seen A kingdom of isolation And it looks like I'm the queen The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside Couldn't keep it in, heaven knows I tried Don't let them in, don't let them see Be the good girl you always have to be Conceal, don't feel, don't let them know Well, now they know Let it go, let it go Can't hold it back anymore Let it go, let it go Turn away and slam the door I don't care what they're going to say because it’s time Grown adults to let it go. Is that Anna or Elsa singing that??!!
Jpan85 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Jeffcoat calling it a career Fatty Liver, Noeller, rebusrankin and 2 others 5
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now