Blue Bombers - 2024 Regular Season - Discussion Thread

[JohnnyAbonny]

22 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

To me Woods has that nose spot covered with the Canadians.  Adams can kind of line up anywhere.

3 tech just refers to where the guy lines up, like mostly a B gap guy in a very linear sense.  It's shifted a lot as focus has moved to pass rush over simple gap control.  The occupy 2 OL thing is just a matter of how effective you are and how the other team schemes based on who they view as a threat.  In run scheme you're trying to double team across the front and then work up to the linebacker/2nd level, base zone run now leaves backside end out or usually brings a back/receiver to chip/duo block across formation.  So if you're any DL vs the run and you can jam up those blocks so that 2nd OL can't break off to get at your LB's that's a pretty big win.

The only teams I see consistently running a gap scheme with run blocking are Hamilton and Montreal, sometimes Sask.  Zone is pretty basic now and way more responsive to the fronts you see without having to check at the line.

They are missing really solid rush end and the swing guy.  Fayad looks ok, hard to judge anyone off the edge when Jefferson playing so passive to the point he's getting a lot looks where blocking back is just standing there watching him straight away.  The opposite end is actually the guy getting the layers of blocking basically since the Ottawa game.  Jefferson has a handful of snaps in a given game this season where he fires off and is a threat.

I just watched the recap of last years game in Calgary, zooming in on Fox. You’re not wrong in your criticism. There was a couple of plays where he drove forward and pushed the pocket, he got a sack on one, but on a lot of pass plays he was standing up straight with his arms extended. Kind of looked like Willie. Quite passive. 

 

The specific thing I’m talking about is at 4:54. He stands up straight and the guard handles him easily. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:46 PM by JohnnyAbonny

[Booch]

11 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

What don’t you like about Fox? Other than he got hurt after a game and a half

Fox is ral good...powerful...active motor and has actualtechnique....can't get him back fast enough...our pressures have suffered since he been out...tho oodles of Jake isnt helping either

 

9 hours ago, Brandon said:

Nope not at all,  I just want the club to use him as a normal QB and stop pigeon holing him into a running guy with gadget plays.   He is starter material and just needs some play time to get back into a groove. 

if he actually used as a legit dual threat QB...he will excel

[Colin Unger]

15 hours ago, Noeller said:

I dream of the day when we can rotate Willie, Garbutt and Haba throughout a game... Fox and Adams in the middle with Schmeckel and Lawson... 

We can only dream. That's way to logical for this team to consider. 

[JohnnyAbonny]

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

Fox is ral good...powerful...active motor and has actualtechnique....can't get him back fast enough...our pressures have suffered since he been out...tho oodles of Jake isnt helping either

 

if he actually used as a legit dual threat QB...he will excel

I’d thought so too, but idk. Small sample size I guess. He’s made a few plays, but I now see some of what JBR doesn’t like as well. 
 

I’d still like to see him play next to Woods for the better part of a game instead of JT or Shmeck.
 

I don’t know when Lawson’s coming back but I think our best interior combo would be him and Woods. 

[wbbfan]

The great thing about Adams like jbr said, is he can play any dl position and technique, so he can split snaps between dt and de. so in an ideal world you have woods take the most dt reps Adams takes the second most reps, wj splits evenly with another end, fox splits fairly evenly with Lawson. 

Every dl has looked much much better when not next to Jake Thomas. I think if you put any combo of dl out there with out Jake or big reps from schmekel, our dl will play exceptionally well. 
 Playing next to an actually good imp nose makes every one much better too. If you have adams, fox and woods on the dl together at the same time in 40 or 30 front alignment you will see far better productivity from each of them than we’ve seen with them split up. Throw wj in protected snaps beside those 3 for 20 snaps a game and the whole front 6 will be the best we’ve seen since 21. 

[GCn20]

5 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

The great thing about Adams like jbr said, is he can play any dl position and technique, so he can split snaps between dt and de. so in an ideal world you have woods take the most dt reps Adams takes the second most reps, wj splits evenly with another end, fox splits fairly evenly with Lawson. 

Every dl has looked much much better when not next to Jake Thomas. I think if you put any combo of dl out there with out Jake or big reps from schmekel, our dl will play exceptionally well. 
 Playing next to an actually good imp nose makes every one much better too. If you have adams, fox and woods on the dl together at the same time in 40 or 30 front alignment you will see far better productivity from each of them than we’ve seen with them split up. Throw wj in protected snaps beside those 3 for 20 snaps a game and the whole front 6 will be the best we’ve seen since 21. 

Hard to judge the DL right now with all the bodies we have lost but I tend to agree with your assessment. Playing with our current group is not getting it done, but that wasn't the plan for sure.

[WinnipegGordo]

Hey @Booch any thoughts?

 

[Super Duper Negatron]

3 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Hey @Booch any thoughts?

 

This is all the evidence i need to ignore Pro Stats Canada from now on.

[BomberBall.]

Thomas being ranked at the top of any rating system is absolutely insane.

Unless they’re using the overused and borderline useless metric.

[Arnold_Palmer]

6 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Hey @Booch any thoughts?

 

I would be very curious to see how these statistics are determined. Obviously they’re garbage. But like I’ve always said, the eye test always beats the “fancy” numbers. 

4 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

This is all the evidence i need to ignore Pro Stats Canada from now on.

Also I DO NOT WANT  O’Shea and the coaching staff seeing this tweet.. 

[Booch]

14 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Hey @Booch any thoughts?

 

none whatsoever...anyone I know with any sort of legit player evaluation skills/responsibility doesnt even look at that...a guy could totally screw up an assignemnt or responsibility but appear via that to have scored high

Edited Wednesday at 09:01 PM by Booch

[wbbfan]

6 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Hey @Booch any thoughts?

 

It’s about how they derive that value. Ba had 8 tackles, which they value highly. Thing is, ba wasn’t even playing in the box. His tackles were mostly down field after first down yardage was gained. Like when wes lysack was leading the league in tackles and was cut, with no one picking him up. Biggie also had 8, and Thomas 4. So that’s 20 tackles with just 1 being for a loss. They are over valuing tackles because it’s easy to extrapolate. 
 

 Value for a db for instance should be some thing like pick, ff/fr, pkd, incompletion to their cover target, tfl, tackle no gain, then tackle short of yardage on 2nd/3rd, then tackle on a completion equal or less than 5, then less than qb avg per completion, then less than wr average. Finally you’d have negative value plays. Some times you get beat and some times another player makes a great play, but in order to be reasonably accurate you have to skew to a low score. A pick might be a score of 1, with a tfl a value of .5, a tackle that yields a first but with in the avg per completion a .1 and a long td surrendered being +1. 
 

what I’m sure they are doing is int, tackle=tfl, ff,fr where the value doesn’t change much between each stat. 

[WinnipegGordo]

 

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

It’s about how they derive that value. Ba had 8 tackles, which they value highly. Thing is, ba wasn’t even playing in the box. His tackles were mostly down field after first down yardage was gained. Like when wes lysack was leading the league in tackles and was cut, with no one picking him up. Biggie also had 8, and Thomas 4. So that’s 20 tackles with just 1 being for a loss. They are over valuing tackles because it’s easy to extrapolate. 
 

 Value for a db for instance should be some thing like pick, ff/fr, pkd, incompletion to their cover target, tfl, tackle no gain, then tackle short of yardage on 2nd/3rd, then tackle on a completion equal or less than 5, then less than qb avg per completion, then less than wr average. Finally you’d have negative value plays. Some times you get beat and some times another player makes a great play, but in order to be reasonably accurate you have to skew to a low score. A pick might be a score of 1, with a tfl a value of .5, a tackle that yields a first but with in the avg per completion a .1 and a long td surrendered being +1. 
 

what I’m sure they are doing is int, tackle=tfl, ff,fr where the value doesn’t change much between each stat. 

exactly....it's a flwed way to grade....Nichols last week had a game of games for a db...didnt even crack the top 5...tells u something right there

[wbbfan]

I mean Nichols was basically playing sam on run downs, ended up with 6 tackles with out getting trucked or giving up a big play both of which ba did. So they are just calculating based off the stat box. I can look at the avg depth of tackle later but I guarantee Nichols is way shorter distance than ba

[Booch]

1 minute ago, WinnipegGordo said:

 

that godamm thorax again hahaha

[Stickem]

With the amount of star studded play stated in Pro Stats release we should have won week 4 in a walkoff.....How come I don't see the 2 pts in our column?????signed just curious

[Booch]

1 minute ago, wbbfan said:

I mean Nichols was basically playing sam on run downs, ended up with 6 tackles with out getting trucked or giving up a big play both of which ba did. So they are just calculating based off the stat box. I can look at the avg depth of tackle later but I guarantee Nichols is way shorter distance than ba

big time....a lot of his work was at or just byond...or behind the L.O.S

also if u are able to calculate yards achieved before tackle...or even contact....tells you who is active...and who is re-active...and reactive after the fact...Thats part of why I dont like Holm at HB....he seems active and always right there...but it's alwys after the fact....He be way better served at safety, and those 2 plays I recall last game he made....were classic plays that if at safety he would make all day long...and likely be active in getting pics

[WinnipegGordo]

Since there are only 3 QBs in town I can see them rostering Zach as the 3rd Qb. Makes no difference salary cap wise if they put him on the 1 game.

[Goalie]

O averaging 18.5 points a game. D giving up just over 23 ish roughly per game. 
 

D has all the injuries. O only really 2 receivers out.  
 

the O is definitely a bigger problem. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:00 PM by Goalie

[BomberBall.]

O and D are both problems.  And how we assemble them and put them to use, is also a problem.

[Goalie]

3 minutes ago, BomberBall. said:

O and D are both problems.  And how we assemble them and put them to use, is also a problem.

Sure but with 1 extra touchdown a game we are 3 and 1 and have 1 passing TD. 

[wbbfan]

1 hour ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Since there are only 3 QBs in town I can see them rostering Zach as the 3rd Qb. Makes no difference salary cap wise if they put him on the 1 game.

The only point would be if he ends up missing 6 weeks, as they can retroactively change him from 1 to 6 weeks. 
 Also, if Chris gets hurt or if both qbs get hurt. Even if one get hurts and the other gets removed for protocol or has to sit plays for an injury sub but ends up ok we are in a bad bad position. 
 I don’t like dressing a qb or player who can’t play.  But at this point of the week we aren’t going to get another qb in and up to speed that it would be any better. If Zach was modestly questionable we shouldve brought in a 4th. Personally I like having a 4th any way on the pr. 
 

7 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Sure but with 1 extra touchdown a game we are 3 and 1 and have 1 passing TD. 

or a we may well have squandered those games away too. We didn’t lose close games while playing well. We’ve stank. I don’t doubt our ability to lose those games even if gifted turn overs resulting in 7s. football doesn’t break down to math well. 
 

1 hour ago, Booch said:

big time....a lot of his work was at or just byond...or behind the L.O.S

also if u are able to calculate yards achieved before tackle...or even contact....tells you who is active...and who is re-active...and reactive after the fact...Thats part of why I dont like Holm at HB....he seems active and always right there...but it's alwys after the fact....He be way better served at safety, and those 2 plays I recall last game he made....were classic plays that if at safety he would make all day long...and likely be active in getting pics

Yep and even that wasn’t taking into consideration plays where you come back to tackle other guys misses, or fail to switch on bunches and rubs, or making an amazing play to beat a run.  Football analytics are worth less in micro than most sports, and are better used in a macro approach like going for it on 3rd down, going for 2 points etc. 

 holm even more than last year seems to be a step late frequently. Last year his explosiveness allowed him to close out and save plays where more sound play would’ve allowed him to maybe play for a turn over. It’s not all on him, his side has struggled. Though ford has improved and the side got better with out karamoko playing big reps. 

[SpeedFlex27]

10 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

I talked an ungodly amount of **** about Fajardo from 19-last year, and doubted him going into this season. 

I’ll eat some crow, he’s playing very well on a very good team and looks to have improved the specific aspects of his game we were all knocking. 

I think it’s got a lot to do with having the one of the best QBs in modern CFL history working with him. 

I don’t think @Mark H. was attacking you Al. I read his point more like, teams can work with a QB who has the tools, that some  thought had plateaued and in Strevelers context, he could be one of those QBs. 
 

I never felt Mark attacked me. My gosh, if I came across that way then I'm sorry. We were just having a football discussion. That's all it was. I wasn't attacking Mark. 

[wbbfan]

here is a box score break down for ba and nichols. 
 

ba, half his tackles were after first down yardage was gained, he had 3 run stops but on a combined 24 rush yards. Zero pass defenses zero incompletions at him. 8 tackles. 

the longest play against Nichols was for 8 yards. Two plays forced 3rd down, 4 passes were incomplete when thrown at his target. 3 run stops totaling 10 rushing yards. 6 tackles. 
 

pretty clear to see those “advanced stats” are trash.