All things considered...

[do or die]

Plenty of reasons we have struck out .....in the last 3 Cup games.

But seriously.........hard to win the big one......when you don't get the Quarterbacking.

[Booch]

Or good.game planning...in game adjusting...sub par rostering and playing injured guys over others you claim are starters and are in building cause they give us a chance to.win games

[GCn20]

On 2025-01-10 at 3:31 PM, Tracker said:

Disagree. The Bombers as a team played very poorly due to several key players (who have been outed repeatedly here). We were letting the game slip away before Collaros was injured and he was trending downwards way 

It was a one score game at the time of Zac's injury. Also, I am not sure why everyone is talking like Toronto and Montreal were gimme. These were very good teams that would require us to step up and execute at a very high level in order to win. Some players let us down in that regard. BS to coaching being the biggest issue. It was a factor, for sure, but at the end of the day these teams beat us by capitalizing on our players mistakes, and our players didn't step up enough to make them pay for theirs.

[GCn20]

On 2025-01-10 at 3:49 PM, do or die said:

Plenty of reasons we have struck out .....in the last 3 Cup games.

But seriously.........hard to win the big one......when you don't get the Quarterbacking.

Yea..we were doomed when it became a choice of an injured QB, a rookie QB, or Jake Dolegala. All 3 choices contained more bad than good.

[HardCoreBlue]

12 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Yea..we were doomed when it became a choice of an injured QB, a rookie QB, or Jake Dolegala. All 3 choices contained more bad than good.

Hmmmm if we had tried all three choices, I.e., Zac starts, plays then gets injured, sit Zac, put in Rookie, doesn’t work, sit rookie, put in JD, doesn’t work, we lose. Then your above statement about we doomed would be factual. But we didn’t use our depth, we chose to stay with an injured finger hard to throw Zac. We will never know what would have happened i.e No one will ever know for sure regardless of one’s opinion of what would have happened if we had sat Zac and deployed our depth.

[CrazyCanuck89]

15 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Hmmmm if we had tried all three choices, I.e., Zac starts, plays then gets injured, sit Zac, put in Rookie, doesn’t work, sit rookie, put in JD, doesn’t work, we lose. Then your above statement about we doomed would be factual. But we didn’t use our depth, we chose to stay with an injured finger hard to throw Zac. We will never know what would have happened i.e No one will ever know for sure regardless of one’s opinion of what would have happened if we had sat Zac and deployed our depth.

Exactly, the index finger on the throwing hand is the most important finger.  Their was no spin on his throws.  The backup couldn't have been worse.

[Goalie]

3 hours ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Exactly, the index finger on the throwing hand is the most important finger.  Their was no spin on his throws.  The backup couldn't have been worse.

By that time it was to late. They put him back in and he promptly threw a couple interceptions. Rookie or dole banana ain’t making a difference 

[Tracker]

3 hours ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:

Exactly, the index finger on the throwing hand is the most important finger.  Their was no spin on his throws.  The backup couldn't have been worse.

A testament to O'Shea's rigid thinking.

[HardCoreBlue]

43 minutes ago, Goalie said:

By that time it was to late. They put him back in and he promptly threw a couple interceptions. Rookie or dole banana ain’t making a difference 

We’re talking about that defining moment, when MOS and crew chose to put ZC back out after getting his finger checked out. It wasn’t too late then but none of us will know how things would have worked out if MOS and crew chose to deploy their depth at that exact moment. Might not have worked but then again might have. Don’t know.

[Mark H.]

1 minute ago, HardCoreBlue said:

We’re talking about that defining moment, when MOS and crew chose to put ZC back out after getting his finger checked out. It wasn’t too late then but none of us will know how things would have worked out if MOS and crew chose to deploy their depth at that exact moment. Might not have worked but then again might have. Don’t know.

The thing is, history very strongly indicates that ZC would have been seen as the only option. Quite frankly, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[HardCoreBlue]

7 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

The thing is, history very strongly indicates that ZC would have been seen as the only option. Quite frankly, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Yes that’s MOS’s modus operandi but I’m not sure what your point is? We have depth for a reason, not to just stand on the sidelines hat on backwards charting stats. And I’m not really not trying to give MOS a hard time here but some posters are making/implying the claim the game was over the second ZC injured his finger. That’s simply not true/can’t be confirmed because the choice was made not to deploy our depth when he came out of the locker room after getting his finger checked. 

Edited Sunday at 07:31 PM by HardCoreBlue

[Booch]

Did the players dress injured guys over healthy options...nope...did players decide to keep a qb in Game who couldn't grip a ball...let alone throw? Nope

Did players run a scheme that wasn't working and failed to change it with adjustments? Nope

All things that contributed in losses...key things....who made those calls? Answr that

Coach did say they all starters and are here purely cause they give us a chance to win games...yet even he doesn't follow that narrative

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Yes that’s MOS’s modus operandi but I’m not sure what your point is? We have depth for a reason, not to just stand on the sidelines hat on backwards charting stats. And I’m not really not trying to give MOS a hard time here but some posters are making/implying the claim the game was over the second ZC injured his finger. That’s simply not true/can’t be confirmed because the choice was made not to deploy our depth when he came out of the locker room after getting his finger checked. 

My point is - that chance of a change of QB was almost non-existent.  

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

My point is - that chance of a change of QB was almost non-existent.  

Why tho?

[Mark H.]

Just now, Booch said:

Why tho?

Past history. It rarely happens.

[HardCoreBlue]

2 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

My point is - that chance of a change of QB was almost non-existent.  

Okay that’s obvious to most here who have observed MOS but still does not negate the point about the importance of  depth use just confirms live and die by the sword can come with its drawbacks and I’m a huge MOS fan. 

[Mark H.]

3 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Okay that’s obvious to most here who have observed MOS but still does not negate the point about the importance of  depth use just confirms live and die by the sword can come with its drawbacks and I’m a huge MOS fan. 

I wasn't trying to negate the importance of depth. Just pointing out that our team makes limited use of it.

[Goalie]

5 hours ago, Booch said:

Why tho?

Cuz Zach prob saved O’Sheas job a few years ago. Loyalty is a thing in sports. It costs lots of teams. It’s cost us a few times probably also. 

[HardCoreBlue]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Cuz Zach prob saved O’Sheas job a few years ago. Loyalty is a thing in sports. It costs lots of teams. It’s cost us a few times probably also. 

Then it would seem loyalty can sometimes get in the way of responsibility, i.e ensuring coaches are putting the appropriate players in the appropriate positions for the team to be successful.

Really tough decisions sometimes, especially during a game, but that’s what professional coaches are paid to do.

[GCn20]

17 hours ago, Booch said:

Why tho?

Because you have to take who you are playing into consideration. Realistically there was only one QB on our roster that was going to beat Toronto. His name is Zac Collaros. He was injured, but realistically our only chance of victory is if Zac is able to suck it up in a championship game and overcome the injury. We put Wilson in and he promptly threw 3 straight incompletions. It's not like we didn't try him. Time was of the essence, instead of going back to Wilson we went with our MOP QB even though he was injured. It backfired, and therefore became the wrong choice, but at the time it was a decision that was made on some sound reasoning. Zac's first pass is a long ball to Wilson that was an inch away from being a perfect long bomb for a TD. Football is wicked that way, and inch here or an inch there.

Edited 23 hours ago by GCn20

[17to85]

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Because you have to take who you are playing into consideration. Realistically there was only one QB on our roster that was going to beat Toronto. His name is Zac Collaros. He was injured, but realistically our only chance of victory is if Zac is able to suck it up in a championship game and overcome the injury. We put Wilson in and he promptly threw 3 straight incompletions. It's not like we didn't try him. Time was of the essence, instead of going back to Wilson we went with our MOP QB even though he was injured. It backfired, and therefore became the wrong choice, but at the time it was a decision that was made on some sound reasoning. Zac's first pass is a long ball to Wilson that was an inch away from being a perfect long bomb for a TD. Football is wicked that way, and inch here or an inch there.

Realistically the worst thing a backup qb is going to do is throw a bunch of interceptions... but maybe he has enough of a spark he makes a couple plays and avoids those turnovers.... collaros wasn't exactly having a strong game before he got hurt and honestly what's the best you can expect from collaros with a sliced open, stitched up frozen index finger on his throwing hand? Dude was too injured to play and should have been sat down. Watching him throw on the sidelines immediately after he came back out there is no way he should have been put back in. Wilson may not have won the game... but at least he could still throw.

[bluto]

Just to put a different spin on the discussion, imagine if going into this game that the teams had each others' QB2 & QB3.

So you'd have had Collaros backed up by Arbuckle and Dukes. The Argos would've had Wilson backed up by Dolegala and Scott.

That would've been a masacre.

[Tracker]

21 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Yes that’s MOS’s modus operandi but I’m not sure what your point is? We have depth for a reason, not to just stand on the sidelines hat on backwards charting stats. And I’m not really not trying to give MOS a hard time here but some posters are making/implying the claim the game was over the second ZC injured his finger. That’s simply not true/can’t be confirmed because the choice was made not to deploy our depth when he came out of the locker room after getting his finger checked. 

If the backup QBs were not good enough to replace a QB with a buggered-up index finger on his throwing hand, why the Hell were they there at all? That would seem to be a huge waste of money. Or would that have been a big FU to Walters for forcing him to tt Nichols and start Collaros way back?

20 hours ago, Booch said:

Why tho?

Because O'Shea.

[Bigblue204]

30 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Realistically the worst thing a backup qb is going to do is throw a bunch of interceptions... but maybe he has enough of a spark he makes a couple plays and avoids those turnovers.... collaros wasn't exactly having a strong game before he got hurt and honestly what's the best you can expect from collaros with a sliced open, stitched up frozen index finger on his throwing hand? Dude was too injured to play and should have been sat down. Watching him throw on the sidelines immediately after he came back out there is no way he should have been put back in. Wilson may not have won the game... but at least he could still throw.

keeping in mind he also told the coaches he couldn't grip the ball properly. Which just makes the plays that followed even more enraging.

[17to85]

As far as onfield reasons, collaros lost them that game. Wilson couldn't have done any worse but at least you're giving the team a chance.