Fatty Liver Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam turned a loss into a win against a Western Division opponent who's above Regina in the standings. Messam did that? I must have missed it. Let's see. 23 points. 7 from an interception returned for a touchdown. 7 from a fumble returned for a touchdown. 3 from a fumble recovered at the 20, minimal advancement, turned into a field goal. 3 from a field goal generated by the offence in the first half. Messam had 0 carries in the first half. 3 from a field goal generated by the offence in the second half. Okay, Messam contributed to the scoring of 3 points. The oddest thing in all of this is it's still a Messam vs Volny debate for some people even though not one single person has ever argued that Volny is a better running back. Volny has 0 carries this season. Just like I had said he would have. The Bombers aren't using him as a running back. Just like I previously said they would not. He remains a role player, just like he always has. His position is listed as RB. It would be more accurate if it just said "Player". Your logic is teetering on the edge of ridiculous. It doesn't matter if it's Volny or any of the other "non-impact" Natls. the Bombers harbour, when they pass on an "impact" Natl. you have to question the policy. Burgess is correct Messam was the difference between winning and losing last night despite your argument that he only contributed to 3 pts. He killed the clock and wore out the BB defence when nothing else was working for the RR. If he's in the Bombers backfield last night they have the ability to grind down the clock with a one point lead and 2 minutes to play without putting the ball in the sky. Messam had a great game last night. Behind that line he might have many. We don't have that line. The logic is pretty simple. People want to argue that Messam is a better running back than Volny. I don't know what imaginary person they are arguing with. Volny is not our backup RB. Cotton is. Forget Volny already. Messam is a more valuable Natl. than most of the no-name Natls. the Bombers employ. Thus he easily could have been accommodated on the roster when the opportunity presented itself for future use and benefit of the team. When the next Natl. LB comes available are they going to pass on him because they're already "set" at linebacker. I hope not. They have to think long-term and acquire Natl. assets and not just focus on the needs of the moment.
iso_55 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 We blame the running backs. I blame the OL. If no holes are open, even Walter Payton can't make yards. That is the problem. We can't block.
Mr Dee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam in no way, shape or form, won the game for Sask., so why are we talking about him? Turnovers were really the only reason we gave that game away. Sask. could not get their offence to score more than FG…one FG! Their defence played real well and we didn't help our own cause, it's that simple. Jaxon and max power 2
iso_55 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam run game killed us. Kept our offense off the field & allowed Durant to keep the ball on the ground instead of in the air where he looked horrible. It wasn't just turnovers that lost us the game. Messam was a game changer & we couldn't stop him. Turnovers, horrible OL play, no run game ourselves & not stopping the run lost us the game.
MOBomberFan Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam run game killed us. Kept our offense off the field & allowed Durant to keep the ball on the ground instead of in the air where he looked horrible. It wasn't just turnovers that lost us the game. Messam was a game changer & we couldn't stop him. Turnovers, horrible OL play, no run game ourselves & not stopping the run lost us the game. Yes exactly. There were many issues that lead to our loss, but I don't know how we are supposed ignore Messam's impact and say he had nothing to do with the win. He ate up a lot of clock that we could have used, and that alone made a huge difference... even if it doesn't amount to points on the board.
Floyd Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Still comes down to the fact that MB's run game works more for a bigger back - doesn't have to be a giant like Messam - but it can't be a guy who jukes before the line of scrimmage. Even with our OL, a guy like Messam would have blasted for at least positive yards each play - that makes a difference on at least three or four failed first downs. MB's game went well with Mallett and Walker... really surprised we didn't go after Mallett actually
SPuDS Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Come on people.. Even the blind can see how this goes... Turnovers led directly to riders lead.. Riders lead means messam is getting the ball.... Lots. Our defense on the field back to back to back almost crushed their endurance... Sask oline made massive holes.. So, without those turnovers messam doesnt get nearly that many touches as we would (i assume) have the lead and durrant is going air attack... Its not like messa stepped on the field and suddenly our offense and defense folded.. We shot ourselves so many times in the foot, im surprised we dont have peg legs...
Fatty Liver Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Come on people.. Even the blind can see how this goes... Turnovers led directly to riders lead.. Riders lead means messam is getting the ball.... Lots. Our defense on the field back to back to back almost crushed their endurance... Sask oline made massive holes.. So, without those turnovers messam doesnt get nearly that many touches as we would (i assume) have the lead and durrant is going air attack... Its not like messa stepped on the field and suddenly our offense and defense folded.. We shot ourselves so many times in the foot, im surprised we dont have peg legs... You're correct, it all rolled together to allow the RR to escape with 2 pts. Chamblin said it was the toughest victory he's ever pulled off.
MOBomberFan Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Yes, but if it were still Ford back there getting stuffed those turnovers would have meant a lot less. 'Blind' would be ignoring the fact that when Sask took the ball away from us and gave it to Messam we had no answers. I guess that's not a big deal if clock and field position aren't important to you.
Floyd Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Totally not making excuses for us... but we still had a chance until that line of scrimmage call. To me it was bogus, I've seen Ray and Burris push that 'line' far more than Willy's infraction. A soft call and then burning the next play as we were just breaking the huddle - ridiculous. That was a completed pass to mid-field with 0:21 on the clock... never know...
gbill2004 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Totally not making excuses for us... but we still had a chance until that line of scrimmage call. To me it was bogus, I've seen Ray and Burris push that 'line' far more than Willy's infraction. A soft call and then burning the next play as we were just breaking the huddle - ridiculous. That was a completed pass to mid-field with 0:21 on the clock... never know... Agreed. Based on what I've seen allowed in other games that completed pass should have been allowed.
Fatty Liver Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Totally not making excuses for us... but we still had a chance until that line of scrimmage call. To me it was bogus, I've seen Ray and Burris push that 'line' far more than Willy's infraction. A soft call and then burning the next play as we were just breaking the huddle - ridiculous. That was a completed pass to mid-field with 0:21 on the clock... never know... Agreed. Based on what I've seen allowed in other games that completed pass should have been allowed. Play was reviewed and linesman's call was confirmed. Can't complain that he did his job.
Goalie Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Totally not making excuses for us... but we still had a chance until that line of scrimmage call. To me it was bogus, I've seen Ray and Burris push that 'line' far more than Willy's infraction. A soft call and then burning the next play as we were just breaking the huddle - ridiculous. That was a completed pass to mid-field with 0:21 on the clock... never know... Agreed. Based on what I've seen allowed in other games that completed pass should have been allowed. Play was reviewed and linesman's call was confirmed. Can't complain that he did his job. What's the rule actually, does anybody actually know the rule? Cuz if it's you can't have your legs over the line of scrimmage, then the play should have stood, If it's you can't release the ball from your hands over the line of scrimmage then they got it right. The other thing is.. not making excuses but floyd and gbill are correct in saying that play has been allowed several times in the past, even this year for that matter. Gotta actually know what the real definition of that rule is.. If legs can't be over the line, it should have stood, if the ball can't be, then they got it right probably.. however, it then becomes a silly rule cuz when you throw the ball, your hand will always be past your legs unless you are some freak or leaning forward quite a bit, almost in a criss angel walking down the side of a building way...
Mr Dee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 As far as iI understood the rule, the foot cannot be over the line, but the ball can. I saw nothing on that play and believed the call would be overturned. The only explanation was they had a better view and part of his foot was over or, or what….I got nothing. R Ray recently had the same play reviewed…and won the review.
Goalie Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 As far as iI understood the rule, the foot cannot be over the line, but the ball can. I saw nothing on that play and believed the call would be overturned. The only explanation was they had a better view and part of his foot was over or, or what….I got nothing. R Ray recently had the same play reviewed…and won the review. had a pretty good view of it from home on the replays and if that's the case, they got the call wrong then.. Willys foot was on the line, don't think it crossed until he released the ball though.
Fatty Liver Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Totally not making excuses for us... but we still had a chance until that line of scrimmage call. To me it was bogus, I've seen Ray and Burris push that 'line' far more than Willy's infraction. A soft call and then burning the next play as we were just breaking the huddle - ridiculous. That was a completed pass to mid-field with 0:21 on the clock... never know... Agreed. Based on what I've seen allowed in other games that completed pass should have been allowed. Play was reviewed and linesman's call was confirmed. Can't complain that he did his job. What's the rule actually, does anybody actually know the rule? Cuz if it's you can't have your legs over the line of scrimmage, then the play should have stood, If it's you can't release the ball from your hands over the line of scrimmage then they got it right. The other thing is.. not making excuses but floyd and gbill are correct in saying that play has been allowed several times in the past, even this year for that matter. Gotta actually know what the real definition of that rule is.. If legs can't be over the line, it should have stood, if the ball can't be, then they got it right probably.. however, it then becomes a silly rule cuz when you throw the ball, your hand will always be past your legs unless you are some freak or leaning forward quite a bit, almost in a criss angel walking down the side of a building way... According to Suitor it is the point that the ball leaves the QB's hand, so from that perspective they got it right. Makes more sense to me to focus on the forward foot from the last point it touches the ground, just like with a reception. Easier to verify too.
Goalie Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Problem is the TSN announcers though aren't the be all and end all and i sometimes get the feeling, the replay people are basing what they see on what the TSN guys are saying, the TSN guys have been wrong in the past, quite often, Not that i don't believe what Suitor said, i would just like to know what the rule is from an official with the league, not a guy who calls the games and seems to think he is the be all and end all when it comes to replay reviews.
Fatty Liver Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Problem is the TSN announcers though aren't the be all and end all and i sometimes get the feeling, the replay people are basing what they see on what the TSN guys are saying, the TSN guys have been wrong in the past, quite often, Not that i don't believe what Suitor said, i would just like to know what the rule is from an official with the league, not a guy who calls the games and seems to think he is the be all and end all when it comes to replay reviews. I'd hope to god that isn't the case.
mbrg Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam run game killed us. Kept our offense off the field & allowed Durant to keep the ball on the ground instead of in the air where he looked horrible. It wasn't just turnovers that lost us the game. Messam was a game changer & we couldn't stop him. Turnovers, horrible OL play, no run game ourselves & not stopping the run lost us the game. Yes exactly. There were many issues that lead to our loss, but I don't know how we are supposed ignore Messam's impact and say he had nothing to do with the win. He ate up a lot of clock that we could have used, and that alone made a huge difference... even if it doesn't amount to points on the board. Saying Messam had nothing to do with the win? Seems like an appropriate response to people saying Messam won the game. Saskatchewan owned the line of scrimmage on both side of the ball. We had 12 more first downs than the Riders after the first half and were kind of lucky to have a 7 point lead. 17 point directly off of turnovers. There were many things to point at when painting a picture of the game. Messam was a few of the brushstrokes, not a paint roller.
blitzmore Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam turned a loss into a win against a Western Division opponent who's above Regina in the standings. Messam did that? I must have missed it. Let's see. 23 points. 7 from an interception returned for a touchdown. 7 from a fumble returned for a touchdown. 3 from a fumble recovered at the 20, minimal advancement, turned into a field goal. 3 from a field goal generated by the offence in the first half. Messam had 0 carries in the first half. 3 from a field goal generated by the offence in the second half. Okay, Messam contributed to the scoring of 3 points. The oddest thing in all of this is it's still a Messam vs Volny debate for some people even though not one single person has ever argued that Volny is a better running back. Volny has 0 carries this season. Just like I had said he would have. The Bombers aren't using him as a running back. Just like I previously said they would not. He remains a role player, just like he always has. His position is listed as RB. It would be more accurate if it just said "Player". Your logic is teetering on the edge of ridiculous. It doesn't matter if it's Volny or any of the other "non-impact" Natls. the Bombers harbour, when they pass on an "impact" Natl. you have to question the policy. Burgess is correct Messam was the difference between winning and losing last night despite your argument that he only contributed to 3 pts. He killed the clock and wore out the BB defence when nothing else was working for the RR. If he's in the Bombers backfield last night they have the ability to grind down the clock with a one point lead and 2 minutes to play without putting the ball in the sky. Messam had a great game last night. Behind that line he might have many. We don't have that line. The logic is pretty simple. People want to argue that Messam is a better running back than Volny. I don't know what imaginary person they are arguing with. Volny is not our backup RB. Cotton is. Forget Volny already. Messam is a more valuable Natl. than most of the no-name Natls. the Bombers employ. Thus he easily could have been accommodated on the roster when the opportunity presented itself for future use and benefit of the team. When the next Natl. LB comes available are they going to pass on him because they're already "set" at linebacker. I hope not. They have to think long-term and acquire Natl. assets and not just focus on the needs of the moment. Lots of teams passed on Messam including the ones that cut him. Do you not think there is a reason for that?
Mr Dee Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Saying Messam had nothing to do with the win? Seems like an appropriate response to people saying Messam won the game. Saskatchewan owned the line of scrimmage on both side of the ball. We had 12 more first downs than the Riders after the first half and were kind of lucky to have a 7 point lead. 17 point directly off of turnovers. There were many things to point at when painting a picture of the game. Messam was a few of the brushstrokes, not a paint roller. There is no way I feel we were kind of lucky to have a 7 point lead. We did have offence, we did move the ball, we did score 2 offensive TDs How far would we have gone with the turnover game even? We lost, we turned the ball over, the two are not mutually exclusive. blitzmore 1
Tracker Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Okay, since there are many who would have loved to see Messam in Blue and Gold (me too), but there is no consensus on that, can we agree that a power back who can break tackles and get the tough three-yard plunge would have been good to have on hand? If so, its pretty obvious that there are few NI's who have the abilities that Messam has, right? Well, it ought to be possible to find such a back in the US so that we have the option to use a scat-back or a power back.
17to85 Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Messam wasn't the reason they lost, and it's not even close. You turn the ball over that much and give up touchdowns outright on a couple of those turnovers what do you think is going to happen? The Riders offence, even with Messam getting over 100 yards did **** all for scoring. Let em run and kick a field goal if it means you hold their qb to low totals. They had plenty of chances with the ball at the end of the game, they turned it over too much plain and simple. Willy forced a couple passes into places he shouldn't and they were picked that's game.
AtlanticRiderFan Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 Turnovers is why the Riders won. Otherwise, this was Winnipeg's game.
Noeller Posted August 8, 2014 Report Posted August 8, 2014 When Messam does nothing for the rest of the season, can we all bellow like 12 year old girls with a bad case of the I Told You So's, as TBurg is...?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now