GDT: Saskatchewan @ Winnipeg

[iso_55]

I'd blame a large part of the Bombers offence on Bellefeuille. No blocking adjustments were made. No help in the run game when the Riders were run blitzing. No help against John Chick.

 

It was quite embarrassing.

The Bombers did make some adjustments on the OL that helped. They were double teaming Chick as the tackles couldn't do it alone. Pretty subtle what the Riders did with John Chick. He is so quick to the football & getting off on the snap that he can line up a bit wider making it more difficult for the tackles to get to their block. He is so fast that he can still get around the tackles even though he's out a bit wider & get to the quarterback.

Also, Morley was pulling from his center position to nullify  Brackenridge's safety blitz from the outside where he like to go. Which when you think about it, asking a centre to get outside the tackles where Brackenridge is timing his blitz is a huge task. It certainly showed off Morley's quickness & athleticism as he did make a difference. He sure has found a home at center if you ask me. 

The Riders are a veteran team that's won 2 Grey Cups recently. We're a young up & coming team that really does lack experience at a lot of positions.. We at least have optimism that better things are yet to come. I look at the Riders & while they are extremely good, they are getting older. I think they have a couple of good years left while we may be seeing the start of many.

Think of the anger, frustration & despair we all felt under Joe Mack & Tim Burke. As a fan, for me now it's like opening the blinds in the morning after I wake up, seeing the sun shining & say what a glorious day. And the day before was pretty good, too. There's no comparison to this years team & the garbage we put up with in 2012 & especially 2013 where there was absolutely nothing to look forward to. There was no hope. 

[Mark H.]

They double-teamed Chick as often as possible.  I'm not sure why Penton tweeted 'they never double-teamed him.'  What were they supposed to do? Double team Chick and let Brackenridge come right up the gap?

[17to85]

 

 

 Riders lose without Messam's 125 yards of rushing in the second half.  

Do they really? I want you to actually justify that comment because I see a team that lost because they turned the ball over when they got it and that isn't affected by the Riders picking up meaningless rushing yards (and yes they were meaningless because they didn't result in a hell of a lot of points) 

 

Cuz you asked so nicely....

 

Rider's offense was almost non-existent before they started running Messam.  Continue with that and our offense gets more chances with the ball, their defense gets tired due to lopsided TOP,  they lose the field position battle and the game.  The yards weren't meaningless, although your posts are getting more and more so.

 

As I thought, you're going with the "just because" reasoning. The Bombers got the ball back plenty of times with plenty of time left and they utterly failed to move the ball. Now in your world apparently more chances would have made it better? I dunno about that, we've seen this offense bog down before against certain defenses and it doesn't matter how many times they get the ball back. Willy wasn't feeling it clearly, he was throwing dangerous passes, they couldn't get the run game going... More opportunities with the ball I don't think would have helped, and to be quite honest, I think without Messam the Riders were a more dangerous team because they would have actually tried passing the ball rather than settling into the conservative 6 yards a carry game they did and they might have broken a big play or two and scored more points. I'll give up 100+ yards in a half if the qb barely cracks 100 passing. 

[James]

You guys are seriously downplaying the impact Messam had on the game simply because you were wrong about him.

His "short" runs where we "stuffed" him he had five yards, and it didn't matter because he made the first down anyway... We could not stop him, even when we got to him early

Like Floyd said, the biggest reason to bring Messam in was to have 2 legit game day RB's on the roster without burning a DI

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

 Riders lose without Messam's 125 yards of rushing in the second half.  

Do they really? I want you to actually justify that comment because I see a team that lost because they turned the ball over when they got it and that isn't affected by the Riders picking up meaningless rushing yards (and yes they were meaningless because they didn't result in a hell of a lot of points) 

 

Cuz you asked so nicely....

 

Rider's offense was almost non-existent before they started running Messam.  Continue with that and our offense gets more chances with the ball, their defense gets tired due to lopsided TOP,  they lose the field position battle and the game.  The yards weren't meaningless, although your posts are getting more and more so.

 

As I thought, you're going with the "just because" reasoning. The Bombers got the ball back plenty of times with plenty of time left and they utterly failed to move the ball. Now in your world apparently more chances would have made it better? I dunno about that, we've seen this offense bog down before against certain defenses and it doesn't matter how many times they get the ball back. Willy wasn't feeling it clearly, he was throwing dangerous passes, they couldn't get the run game going... More opportunities with the ball I don't think would have helped, and to be quite honest, I think without Messam the Riders were a more dangerous team because they would have actually tried passing the ball rather than settling into the conservative 6 yards a carry game they did and they might have broken a big play or two and scored more points. I'll give up 100+ yards in a half if the qb barely cracks 100 passing. 

 

As I thought, you don't know reasoning when you see it.

 

You want it to be about 1 thing and you've decided that's turnovers.  Anything else is illogical to you.

 

You can't just take away our bad plays and say if we didn't have them we would have won.  It's true, but it's simplistic and unrealistic.  Playing your game, Regina would take away the first 'Illegal contact' penalty on our only drive and we wouldn't have scored a TD or a FG in that drive.  They'd take away the 13 men in the huddle penalty and have scored FG at the end of the half.  They'd take away the trip in the endzone that cost them the second TD and possibly another INT.  2 penalties and 1 bad play and all of a sudden, we've lost 14 points and they've gained 3.  OMG, we weren't even close!  LOL.

 

Football games are won and lost on many plays by many players.  Close games come down to a handful of plays which if they went the other way would change the winner and loser.  

 

My last point, although I suspect you've stopped reading already...  If we'd have signed Messam instead of Regina we'd have won the last game even if he didn't touch the ball because he couldn't hurt us.

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

 

 Riders lose without Messam's 125 yards of rushing in the second half.  

Do they really? I want you to actually justify that comment because I see a team that lost because they turned the ball over when they got it and that isn't affected by the Riders picking up meaningless rushing yards (and yes they were meaningless because they didn't result in a hell of a lot of points) 

 

Cuz you asked so nicely....

 

Rider's offense was almost non-existent before they started running Messam.  Continue with that and our offense gets more chances with the ball, their defense gets tired due to lopsided TOP,  they lose the field position battle and the game.  The yards weren't meaningless, although your posts are getting more and more so.

 

As I thought, you're going with the "just because" reasoning. The Bombers got the ball back plenty of times with plenty of time left and they utterly failed to move the ball. Now in your world apparently more chances would have made it better? I dunno about that, we've seen this offense bog down before against certain defenses and it doesn't matter how many times they get the ball back. Willy wasn't feeling it clearly, he was throwing dangerous passes, they couldn't get the run game going... More opportunities with the ball I don't think would have helped, and to be quite honest, I think without Messam the Riders were a more dangerous team because they would have actually tried passing the ball rather than settling into the conservative 6 yards a carry game they did and they might have broken a big play or two and scored more points. I'll give up 100+ yards in a half if the qb barely cracks 100 passing. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Riders lose without Messam's 125 yards of rushing in the second half.  

Do they really? I want you to actually justify that comment because I see a team that lost because they turned the ball over when they got it and that isn't affected by the Riders picking up meaningless rushing yards (and yes they were meaningless because they didn't result in a hell of a lot of points) 

 

Cuz you asked so nicely....

 

Rider's offense was almost non-existent before they started running Messam.  Continue with that and our offense gets more chances with the ball, their defense gets tired due to lopsided TOP,  they lose the field position battle and the game.  The yards weren't meaningless, although your posts are getting more and more so.

 

As I thought, you're going with the "just because" reasoning. The Bombers got the ball back plenty of times with plenty of time left and they utterly failed to move the ball. Now in your world apparently more chances would have made it better? I dunno about that, we've seen this offense bog down before against certain defenses and it doesn't matter how many times they get the ball back. Willy wasn't feeling it clearly, he was throwing dangerous passes, they couldn't get the run game going... More opportunities with the ball I don't think would have helped, and to be quite honest, I think without Messam the Riders were a more dangerous team because they would have actually tried passing the ball rather than settling into the conservative 6 yards a carry game they did and they might have broken a big play or two and scored more points. I'll give up 100+ yards in a half if the qb barely cracks 100 passing. 

 

 

Oh ye' of little faith, your argument is without merit.   Essentially what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how many extra possessions the Bombers would have had in the last Q. without Messam because they had no chance of scoring more points anyway because the O was playing poorly.  How does that make sense in the context of the Ti-Cat game when they had  3 possessions that stalled in the 4th Q before they finally got their **** together and mounted the drive that won the game on the last play.  

 

More possessions=more opportunity to score points=better chance to win the game.

[iso_55]

The offense can't score if it isn't on the field. Messam controlled the clock & took the football away from our offense & gave the Riders first downs. There were many reasons why the team lost. Not just one but a combination. Both TBurgess & 17to85 are right.

[Fraser]

The offense can't score if it isn't on the field. Messam controlled the clock & took the football away from our offense & gave the Riders first downs. There were many reasons why the team lost. Not just one but a combination. Both TBurgess & 17to85 are right.

Well the only points sask scored was when its offense was off the field

[Mark H.]

 

The offense can't score if it isn't on the field. Messam controlled the clock & took the football away from our offense & gave the Riders first downs. There were many reasons why the team lost. Not just one but a combination. Both TBurgess & 17to85 are right.

Well the only points sask scored was when its offense was off the field

 

 

And they were held to a field goal on two of the turnovers - that's a win for our D.

[iso_55]

 

The offense can't score if it isn't on the field. Messam controlled the clock & took the football away from our offense & gave the Riders first downs. There were many reasons why the team lost. Not just one but a combination. Both TBurgess & 17to85 are right.

Well the only points sask scored was when its offense was off the field

 

Apples & oranges. I don't care about the Riders. WE couldn't score because our offense was standing at the bench watching.

[Mr Dee]

This Messam argument is ridiculous.

It shouldn't be about who it was at all. Messam, Mr. Peabody or Darian Durant.

Their offence, no matter who it was, or if it was by pass or running, did not dominate the game or even win the game by subtraction.

The TOP was was :09 Winnipeg.

 

Messam did not keep the ball away from us any more than any team's normal offence would have.

His handling of the ball led to a meagre 4 points.

Our primary purpose of stopping the pass worked very well and the fact that their running game accounted for only 4 points cannot be denied.

 

And penalties?

O'Shea has done a good job on that front.

Don't discredit the Bombers control in that area.

It can easily be said we force other teams to be taking all those penalties, not the other way around.

 

Saskatchewan won the game on turnovers whether you choose to admit it or not.

We didn't deserve to win with 5-6 turnovers to none…and that's what happened.

To bring in personal arguments about such and such player in such a game is laughable, really.

 

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

The offense can't score if it isn't on the field. Messam controlled the clock & took the football away from our offense & gave the Riders first downs. There were many reasons why the team lost. Not just one but a combination. Both TBurgess & 17to85 are right.

Well the only points sask scored was when its offense was off the field

 

Apples & oranges. I don't care about the Riders. WE couldn't score because our offense was standing at the bench watching.

 

We should all promise to leave this discussion behind when the Bombers play the Riders on Labour Day and in every subsequent game the Bombers face Messam.  Water under the bridge.  Doesn't preclude from the ongoing search for a bigger RB and hopefully Walters doesn't share O'Shea's opinion that there is nothing wrong with the running game other than player mistakes.

[SPuDS]

This Messam argument is ridiculous.

It shouldn't be about who it was at all. Messam, Mr. Peabody or Darian Durant.

Their offence, no matter who it was, or if it was by pass or running, did not dominate the game or even win the game by subtraction.

The TOP was was :09 Winnipeg.

Messam did not keep the ball away from us any more than any team's normal offence would have.

His handling of the ball led to a meagre 4 points.

Our primary purpose of stopping the pass worked very well and the fact that their running game accounted for only 4 points cannot be denied.

And penalties?

O'Shea has done a good job on that front.

Don't discredit the Bombers control in that area.

It can easily be said we force other teams to be taking all those penalties, not the other way around.

Saskatchewan won the game on turnovers whether you choose to admit it or not.

We didn't deserve to win with 5-6 turnovers to none…and that's what happened.

To bring in personal arguments about such and such player in such a game is laughable, really.

Excellent call, totally agree.. Without those turnovers, we probably win that game easy...

[pigseye]

Turnovers or not, this team has no ground game and can't stop the run when a team actually commits to running the ball against them......

[James]

This Messam argument is ridiculous.

It shouldn't be about who it was at all. Messam, Mr. Peabody or Darian Durant.

Their offence, no matter who it was, or if it was by pass or running, did not dominate the game or even win the game by subtraction.

The TOP was was :09 Winnipeg.

 

Messam did not keep the ball away from us any more than any team's normal offence would have.

His handling of the ball led to a meagre 4 points.

Our primary purpose of stopping the pass worked very well and the fact that their running game accounted for only 4 points cannot be denied.

 

And penalties?

O'Shea has done a good job on that front.

Don't discredit the Bombers control in that area.

It can easily be said we force other teams to be taking all those penalties, not the other way around.

 

Saskatchewan won the game on turnovers whether you choose to admit it or not.

We didn't deserve to win with 5-6 turnovers to none…and that's what happened.

To bring in personal arguments about such and such player in such a game is laughable, really.

 

Their offence didn't do anything against us all night... the only thing they could do successfully on us was pound the ball with Messam. Ford couldn't run against us, Durant couldn't pass against us.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

Riders lose without Messam's 125 yards of rushing in the second half.

Do they really? I want you to actually justify that comment because I see a team that lost because they turned the ball over when they got it and that isn't affected by the Riders picking up meaningless rushing yards (and yes they were meaningless because they didn't result in a hell of a lot of points)

Haha if he did run so well we would have lost by more cause we would have had time for a few more turnovers.

 

 

yeah exactly.  The Bombers offense was Saskatchewan's best weapon, not Messam.  Demond Washington also helped.

[Goalie]

Yeah those 3 points given up on demonds fumble really killed us and not the fumble by Willy that lead directly to a touchdown or the pick 6 he threw. 

[James]

I hate to say it but Drew kind of cost us the game... didn't help on his fumble when all the O-line were just standing around looking like a bunch of goofs while the ball was rolling around on the ground.

 

Nobody should, or will hate on him though cause he's the best guy we've had since Khari, and he's young with a great attitude

[kelownabomberfan]

Yeah those 3 points given up on demonds fumble really killed us and not the fumble by Willy that lead directly to a touchdown or the pick 6 he threw.

I said Bomber offense too. Washington had two bad plays - the fumble of course which should have cost us 6 points, and the play near the end of the half where he ran out the missed FG and only got to the 7 yard line. That should have also cost us three, thankfully Sask's bumbling and penalties put them out of FG range. As I said, I don't want to see DW anywhere near any punts, kick off returns or in the end zone waiting on missed field goals. Woods or Cotton. That's it.