Free Agency 2025

[Booch]

A few players underperformed...so did some on winning teams that beat us too...that's not an excuse

Unferperforming players generally are a direct line to being poorly coached in a game and failing to adjust and schemed wrong generally 90 percent of time...that and a player either just not good enough...or healthy ..and sadly we had all of that combining in it

Those 3 reasons are why we pissed away 3 straight cups...we were out coached and poorly constructed ..especially the last 2 cups with minimal to zero depth to actually play as an adequate injury replacement...coaching was our demise even considering all the ya buts..they mean diddly 

T.o had nothing going on with their offence in 2022...so they yanked the underperforming vet for a rookie..pulled it out...mtl used a middling limited QB who we had owned.. schemed a game plan for him to negate our strengths...we didn't adapt ...we played 5 guys...key guys clearly injured...as we had no depth..or faith in backups...Mtl won

T.O last yr...had to start a backup...schemed a plan for him...and on defense same...we either couldn't...or wouldn't adapt...then continued to play a qb who couldn't throw...as we either had no depth or faith in it...or ability to on the fly create a plan...and lost

That's coaching boys and girls...but oh yeah we won the west...who ******* cares

 

44 minutes ago, Goalie said:

 

[Bigblue204]

I don't think it's wrong to say the Bombers beat the tar out of the riders in the WF. They did. They did so by having a game plan to attack the weakest part of their defense (regardless of what the media said, it was their secondary by a mile) AND make Trevor win the game for them, which was never an option.

They also had the right players play well.

When they win, it's because all of the components have come together properly. Just like when they lose, it's because multiple things fail. 

To push it to one person not doing this or doing that is just flat out incorrect. Go ahead and say a qb should win games by himself. That's an incredibly ignorant take and completely ignores the reality of what makes football the greatest game on the planet.

[Fatty Liver]

3 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it's wrong to say the Bombers beat the tar out of the riders in the WF. They did. They did so by having a game plan to attack the weakest part of their defense (regardless of what the media said, it was their secondary by a mile) AND make Trevor win the game for them, which was never an option.

They also had the right players play well.

You could be right, the Riders might have been out of their depth against a motivated Bomber team at home,  but it sure looks like there was a whole lot of confusion in that secondary on Lawler's 3 TD's.  That falls on the DC, screwups like that shouldn't still be happening so late in the season.

This was a great goodbye Wpg. present from Lawler.

 

Edited February 14 by Fatty Liver

[Bigblue204]

3 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

You could be right, the Riders might have been out of their depth against a motivated Bomber team at home,  but it sure looks like there was a whole lot of confusion in that secondary on Lawler's 3 TD's.  That falls on the DC if so, screwups like that shouldn't still be happening so late in the season.

This was a great goodbye Wpg. present from Lawler.

 

Yes. The Bombers knew where to attack and how to break what the riders had been doing. The riders had a horrible game plan and their players didn't do enough to over come. 

[B140]

58 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I don't think it's wrong to say the Bombers beat the tar out of the riders in the WF. They did. They did so by having a game plan to attack the weakest part of their defense (regardless of what the media said, it was their secondary by a mile) AND make Trevor win the game for them, which was never an option.

They also had the right players play well.

When they win, it's because all of the components have come together properly. Just like when they lose, it's because multiple things fail. 

To push it to one person not doing this or doing that is just flat out incorrect. Go ahead and say a qb should win games by himself. That's an incredibly ignorant take and completely ignores the reality of what makes football the greatest game on the planet.

I don’t think the cheerleaders had anything to do with any of our losses 🤔

[Goalie]

2 hours ago, B140 said:

I don’t think the cheerleaders had anything to do with any of our losses 🤔

I dunno man, some are pretty hot. Distracting. Damn hot cheerleaders looking way too good. 

Edited February 14 by Goalie

[do or die]

11 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

 The riders had a horrible game plan and their players didn't do enough to over come. 

Same thing with the Bombers, in the Cup game, unfortunately...

[GCn20]

2 hours ago, do or die said:

Same thing with the Bombers, in the Cup game, unfortunately...

For sure. The Bombers were able to exploit a Rider weakness. The Argos exploited our weak pass pro.

[Brandon]

19 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

For sure. The Bombers were able to exploit a Rider weakness. The Argos exploited our weak pass pro.

They mainly exploited our coaches inability to adapt and change a game plan when things were not working  (i.e.  use our MOP running back which was working and continue to run the ball) 

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, Brandon said:

They mainly exploited our coaches inability to adapt and change a game plan when things were not working  (i.e.  use our MOP running back which was working and continue to run the ball) 

And now we're beating a dead horse...but that's what was so maddening about it. They showed they could adjust and change things up against TO. That's how they came back in the regular season game against them. The one at home. They changed up what they were doing in the second half. I assumed that's how they'd attack in the GC....but they didnt...just....why? Why buck? Why'd you do us like that?

[GCn20]

42 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

And now we're beating a dead horse...but that's what was so maddening about it. They showed they could adjust and change things up against TO. That's how they came back in the regular season game against them. The one at home. They changed up what they were doing in the second half. I assumed that's how they'd attack in the GC....but they didnt...just....why? Why buck? Why'd you do us like that?

The game plan was to attack the Argos strength. Makes no sense. Pure hubris

[bearpants]

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

The game plan was to attack the Argos strength. Makes no sense. Pure hubris

A friend of mine who's a huge football fan but not a huge CFL fan (he'll go to a few games with me a year and watch playoffs) commented after the GC... why did the Bombers keep attacking McManis... guy is clearly the best player on the field. 

[GCn20]

On 2025-02-14 at 12:40 PM, bearpants said:

A friend of mine who's a huge football fan but not a huge CFL fan (he'll go to a few games with me a year and watch playoffs) commented after the GC... why did the Bombers keep attacking McManis... guy is clearly the best player on the field. 

Not just McManis. We did nothing to take their DL out of the game in the passing and nothing to spread out the Lbers in the run game either.

[Booch]

7 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Not just McManis. We did nothing to take their DL out of the game in the passing and nothing to spread out the Lbers in the run game either.

with our DB's and whats looking like a more active LB group...if we could field a legit 4 man front...with better than adequate 2 guys to rotate in...we would dominate on defence....right now tho...just dont see it...camp better be intense and of the open competition type where the best get jobs....TBD tho

[SpeedFlex27]

On 2025-02-13 at 6:01 PM, Booch said:

A few players underperformed...so did some on winning teams that beat us too...that's not an excuse

Unferperforming players generally are a direct line to being poorly coached in a game and failing to adjust and schemed wrong generally 90 percent of time...that and a player either just not good enough...or healthy ..and sadly we had all of that combining in it

Those 3 reasons are why we pissed away 3 straight cups...we were out coached and poorly constructed ..especially the last 2 cups with minimal to zero depth to actually play as an adequate injury replacement...coaching was our demise even considering all the ya buts..they mean diddly 

T.o had nothing going on with their offence in 2022...so they yanked the underperforming vet for a rookie..pulled it out...mtl used a middling limited QB who we had owned.. schemed a game plan for him to negate our strengths...we didn't adapt ...we played 5 guys...key guys clearly injured...as we had no depth..or faith in backups...Mtl won

T.O last yr...had to start a backup...schemed a plan for him...and on defense same...we either couldn't...or wouldn't adapt...then continued to play a qb who couldn't throw...as we either had no depth or faith in it...or ability to on the fly create a plan...and lost

That's coaching boys and girls...but oh yeah we won the west...who ******* cares

 

That sums it up quite nicely. 

11 hours ago, Booch said:

with our DB's and whats looking like a more active LB group...if we could field a legit 4 man front...with better than adequate 2 guys to rotate in...we would dominate on defence....right now tho...just dont see it...camp better be intense and of the open competition type where the best get jobs....TBD tho

With Osh, it'll be, "Pull up a lawnchair. You're a veteran. You don't need to practice. Hey Neuf, Thomas get over here!"

[Booch]

9 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

That sums it up quite nicely. 

With Osh, it'll be, "Pull up a lawnchair. You're a veteran. You don't need to practice. Hey Neuf, Thomas get over here!"

catch a ride with Kolo....hahaha.....and Pick up Wilson from the Vic....

[bluto]

On 2025-02-13 at 8:01 PM, Booch said:

T.o had nothing going on with their offence in 2022...so they yanked the underperforming vet for a rookie..pulled it out...

I agree with your post, largely, but had to add: We yanked MacBeth for Kelly because his hand connected with a Bomber player's helmet (I want to say Jeffcoat?) and as you know, having to rely on a QB with an injured throwing hand is bad... luckily we had 12 ready to go.

[Goalie]

50 minutes ago, bluto said:

I agree with your post, largely, but had to add: We yanked MacBeth for Kelly because his hand connected with a Bomber player's helmet (I want to say Jeffcoat?) and as you know, having to rely on a QB with an injured throwing hand is bad... luckily we had 12 ready to go.

Yup. The worst thing the bombers did that game was injure MBT cuz we were winning at that point. Kelly came in and we couldn’t tackle. And the rest as they say is history and you guys had your lunch hour parade at city hall. 

Edited Thursday at 04:23 PM by Goalie