All things considered...

[Booch]

Ambles and BOLO would have offered more than Demski..Bailey and Schoen in that game as for nothing but the fact that they could actually run with authority and garner attention....any discussion that replacing 2 of them with healthy bodies wouldnt have made  huge difference is just a flat out idiot......or an Osh nad licker...or both

Once MTL realized they were basically ineffective and could give a huge cushion and basically ignore, to more or less neutralize B.O and Lawler and know ZC would start to force things was the game right there.....it was a close one score game .....so imagine a couple of guys in lineup who could have made plays.....and points we didnt get.....

Same as last yr....1 score game.....do you think anyone of the back-ups and maybe Buck adjusting what he was doing...which wasnt working anyway would have again made a difference.....instead of keeping a QB in who couldnt do anything?....like shake your heads man....

[17to85]

With the receivers 2 years ago you can get away with dressing 1 guy who can't run but not 3. That just handicaps yourself too much. 

[Goalie]

2 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting we lost because Ambles didn't play.

I think its adding to the debate about dressing starters at 50%-70% versus dressing depth players at 100%.

Zach doesn’t throw to guys he doesn’t have chemistry with. If the QB shits the bed and that’s both cfl and nfl, you lose. Thats what’s happened. Zach has been **** when it mattered most. If your qb is ****, you lose. Turn it over more than the other team, you lose. 
 

the fact we beat Sask the one year when we turned the ball over like 5 times was a miracle. 

[HardCoreBlue]

Just now, Goalie said:

Zach doesn’t throw to guys he doesn’t have chemistry with. If the QB shits the bed and that’s both cfl and nfl, you lose. Thats what’s happened. Zach has been **** when it mattered most. If your qb is ****, you lose. Turn it over more than the other team, you lose. 
 

the fact we beat Sask the one year when we turned the ball over like 5 times was a miracle. 

Interesting with some valid points but losing 3 straight GC games does not fall solely on the shoulders of ZC. 

Football is the ultimate team sport ergo win or lose as a team. Praise and/or blame is usually distributed in varying percentages across the players, coaches and management.

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Interesting with some valid points but losing 3 straight GC games does not fall solely on the shoulders of ZC. 

Football is the ultimate team sport ergo win or lose as a team. Praise and/or blame is usually distributed in varying percentages across the players, coaches and management.

If that were totally true qbs wouldn't get paid so damned much in comparison to the rest of the league. Teams with bad qbs never amount to much regardless of how good the rest of the roster is.

[HardCoreBlue]

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

If that were totally true qbs wouldn't get paid so damned much in comparison to the rest of the league. Teams with bad qbs never amount to much regardless of how good the rest of the roster is.

I did say praise and/or blame is distributed in varying percentages across the players, not distributed equally but the point remains QB1 is the guy who runs the show but can't do it all by himself, needs to be surrounded by a good supporting cast and have coaches/management who field this supporting cast and put them in positions to be successful that play to the QB's strengths. So when autopsies of games are done, yes bad QB play is exposed but what also is exposed is bad supporting cast play and bad coaching/management decisions. The beauty of breaking down game tape that as fans usually don't see and have the skill to understand what transpired from plays being whistled in to whistled dead. I've attended these game tape reviews in minor football and things were flying over my head constantly and/or helped me understand what was really going on that I didn't catch in real time.

[Booch]

A pro QB should be able to throw to anyone who is running the designed routes....saying they don't have chemistry and thats why they failed is just an excuse....chemistry is nice and can make for the ordinary play become extraordinary....but running the offence as schemed a pro QB who is good...will fit it in even if a fat oline guy has to throw on a pinny and play receiver...if he where he supposed to be...the QB will find him....excuses are for losers...always have been...always will be

[17to85]

Except collaros has shown himself to be a guy who has his favoured crutches... in an ideal world sure what you say is true... but the world ain't ideal.

[Booch]

Just now, 17to85 said:

Except collaros has shown himself to be a guy who has his favoured crutches... in an ideal world sure what you say is true... but the world ain't ideal.

and that is a major flaw with a guy sucking up 600+k,.....major...and should be adressed...worked on....and if he just can't/wont....ride the pine a bit....again....circles back to coaching or lack there of

 

[Fatty Liver]

3 hours ago, Goalie said:

Zach doesn’t throw to guys he doesn’t have chemistry with. If the QB shits the bed and that’s both cfl and nfl, you lose. Thats what’s happened. Zach has been **** when it mattered most. If your qb is ****, you lose. Turn it over more than the other team, you lose. 
 

the fact we beat Sask the one year when we turned the ball over like 5 times was a miracle. 

Zach rarely plays great in big games when the score is close, I suspect he doesn't handle stress all that well, he may be too hotwired and competitive to be able to relax and think clearly.  In games like LDC and BB were the results don't usually matter one way or the other, he has fun soaking it all up and plays relaxed, but in playoffs when the pressure is turned up he tightens up like a steel drum and is unable to create any flow.

Edited 13 hours ago by Fatty Liver

[GCn20]

49 minutes ago, Booch said:

A pro QB should be able to throw to anyone who is running the designed routes....saying they don't have chemistry and thats why they failed is just an excuse....chemistry is nice and can make for the ordinary play become extraordinary....but running the offence as schemed a pro QB who is good...will fit it in even if a fat oline guy has to throw on a pinny and play receiver...if he where he supposed to be...the QB will find him....excuses are for losers...always have been...always will be

I agree with you on BOLO, but Ambles wasn't just a matter of chemistry there was a high probability that given his short amount of time that he hadn't caught onto the play book. Our offensive playbook is not an easy uptake, as was demonstrated early this season with our rookies.

[SpeedFlex27]

4 hours ago, Goalie said:

Yup lost cuz a dude who never played another cfl game again never played. Honestly. The hysteria is a bit much. 

No, we lost because our stubborn coach played three starters who couldn't run. Not because a player isn't in the CFL anymore. Ambles would have been better than playing injured guys who couldn't outrun a 75 year old. Then, you'd think he have learned from the year previous but nope. zach Collarios mangled his finger while we had two qbs sitting on the bench. One that threw for over 2,000 yards the season previous. They were benched. 

[Stickem]

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

Zach rarely plays great in big games when the score is close, I suspect he doesn't handle stress all that well, he may be too hotwired and competitive to be able to relax and think clearly.  In games like LDC and BB were the results don't usually matter one way or the other, he has fun soaking it all up and plays relaxed, but in playoffs when the pressure is turned up he tightens up like a steel drum and develops no flow.

Yup ...and add that to a torn up finger on his throwing hand and you get the predictable result....When certain plays don't work out (dropped pass, sack etc.) he definitey gets flustered in the 'big games'......and forces things leading to some horrendous pics ...We have managed to come out on top in playoff tilts due to some heroics by our receivers BUT then the big choke happens and unfortunately occurs in the Cup games ...Zack was certainly a more relaxed qb. in the Cups we won....and I don't know, my guess is, it seemed the pressure to be successful and keep it going appears to have been too much....I hope he can return to the 'Zack' we know as a winner in 25'..IF not we better start beating the bushes

[Goalie]

55 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No, we lost because our stubborn coach played three starters who couldn't run. Not because a player isn't in the CFL anymore. Ambles would have been better than playing injured guys who couldn't outrun a 75 year old. Then, you'd think he have learned from the year previous but nope. zach Collarios mangled his finger while we had two qbs sitting on the bench. One that threw for over 2,000 yards the season previous. They were benched. 

No. We lost because Montreal scored a TD with seconds to go in reality. You can blame it on this guy that guy or whoever else. Blame coaches who aren’t playing. Blame ambrosie really but in the end Montreal scored a TD with seconds to go and our qb was outplayed by fajardo. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Goalie

[17to85]

Last 3 years boils down to the offense, which is littered with highly paid stars did not do enough,  not nearly enough. 

At least we know we will get a fresh perspective on it from the coaching this season so we shall see what happens. 

 

Honestly for me it still comes down to I'd have moved on from collaros before last season and gone with Brown. 

[Tracker]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

If that were totally true qbs wouldn't get paid so damned much in comparison to the rest of the league. Teams with bad qbs never amount to much regardless of how good the rest of the roster is.

The last two QB's who beat the Bombers in the Grey Cup beg to differ.

[WBBFanWest]

6 hours ago, Goalie said:

Yup lost cuz a dude who never played another cfl game again never played. Honestly. The hysteria is a bit much. 

Being that everyone's a starter, I'm struggling to know why we play people that are clearly not anywhere near 100%

[Booch]

2 hours ago, GCn20 said:

I agree with you on BOLO, but Ambles wasn't just a matter of chemistry there was a high probability that given his short amount of time that he hadn't caught onto the play book. Our offensive playbook is not an easy uptake, as was demonstrated early this season with our rookies.

he was here for over a onth...a CFL vet....I sure he knew the basic route tree in the CFL and where the holes in a zone were.....he could have played with 1 week here really.....the fact he could just play anywhere...and run posts...fades ,..out and up roayres or deep crossers somebody would hae had to cover him or else we would have been gouging them for gaping amounts of yards....he wasn't some raw rookie

And that playbook isnt that complicated, and if it was...it obviously caused issues all yr as for most part ZC passing game was crap......or....is it ZC being the issue...again...excuses are for.........

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

No, we lost because our stubborn coach played three starters who couldn't run. Not because a player isn't in the CFL anymore. Ambles would have been better than playing injured guys who couldn't outrun a 75 year old. Then, you'd think he have learned from the year previous but nope. zach Collarios mangled his finger while we had two qbs sitting on the bench. One that threw for over 2,000 yards the season previous. They were benched. 

and the the 2022 yr...ZC couldnt move...run...or properly plant to throw effectively....yet he took every bloody rep....we dont learn...well somebody on the staff doesnt...1 yr...i will gave a guy a pass....2 yrs...hmmm...maybe it was a flukey anomoly...3 yrs....hell no.....and from looks of some early signings...lack of rounding out a coaching staff....i see yr 4 of.....who knows but a lot of the same

50 minutes ago, Goalie said:

No. We lost because Montreal scored a TD with seconds to go in reality. You can blame it on this guy that guy or whoever else. Blame coaches who aren’t playing. Blame ambrosie really but in the end Montreal scored a TD with seconds to go and our qb was outplayed by fajardo. 

maybe if we had a full healthy roster on offence....it wouldnt have even been close by that point...maybe 5 game ready recievers would have made 5..6..7 extra first downs.....opened stuff up for the run game?....u fail to look at the whole picture......hamstringing the offence...and playing a useless Bighill wrere major factors in the game when u add up all the cumulative plays...also dumping a proven vet and playoff performer db who had seen that pattern we got beat on probably 1000's times for a gut with flashy INT stats.....but penchant for getting beat bad gane in and game out didnt help either

3 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Being that everyone's a starter, I'm struggling to know why we play people that are clearly not anywhere near 100%

or dress one...BOLO....and not give him a single rep....while 3 guys limped around....and nary got a look by a defender because they could let them catch a short underneath pass and then just close on them for minimal to no gain....