Gary Etcheverry prediction came true!

[Pitthead]

I called out Etcheverry's sketcheverry methods on the "other board" back in June before the season even started and now unfortunately it's clear that I was right. Garry Etcheverry must go and the Bomber's have to start staffing their crew with stable, normal, competent coaches. How about someone who doesn't believe in their supernatural abilities to defy the laws of physics? No matter how clever you think you are Gary, receiver sized linebackers can not stop linebacker sized running backs. Duh Duh Duh double Duh! This no playbook "genius" reminds me so much of Mike Kelly and his "genius"  no shotgun offence. Thing is, the Kelly season is the Bomber's second best outing since that bald headed chicken f****r left town.

Here's what I wrote on June 15 on the "other board" (before I found this board).

http://ourbombers.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36618

Was I right or was I right? I don't want to be right dammit. I just want the team to win or at least be competitive This will never happen until the inmates stop running the funny farm.. When will the nightmare end?
 

[DR. CFL]

Not sure that was a tough prediction....history does repeat. Try for the lotto max numbers and make us believers.

[ediger]

nearly 50% of the people on here made the same "prediction"

[gbill2004]

nearly 50% of the people on here made the same "prediction"

Yep that's the book on Etch.

[The Classic]

Can we keep links to the "other" to less than minimum?

[Mr Dee]

Can we keep links to the "other" to less than minimum?

 

That's our own version of…the practice roster.

[Goalie]

Delete - Congrats on the prediction tho.  

[TrueBlue4ever]

Can we keep links to the "other" to less than minimum?

 

That's our own version of…the practice roster.

So the other board is Paris Cotton and this board is Nic Grigsby?

[NotoriousBIG]

I can think of 5 regulars here -- myself included -- who were bemoaning "anyone but Etch." Half of SK was in on it too. 

 

I think even O'Shea knew but somebody needed to to take the job

[voodoochylde]

My initial thoughts on Etchevary ...

 

http://morningbigblue.com/community/topic/3263-meet-gary-etcheverry/?p=46734

[iso_55]

There's really only two Bombers boards. The third is irrelevant. 

[iso_55]

I can think of 5 regulars here -- myself included -- who were bemoaning "anyone but Etch." Half of SK was in on it too. 

 

I think even O'Shea knew but somebody needed to to take the job

I'm on that list. So disappointing he was offered the job. And it's turned out exactly the way I thought it would. Etch is a square peg kind of coach who tries to fit his defense with round ones. 

[17to85]

Do you want a medal? The only people who didn't predict the results from Etchevary when his name was first brought up as a candidate were the sunshine and rainbows crowd who buy every thing the team does hook line and sinker. 

 

But here's the real kicker, he's actually been better than most of us predicted he would be. I don't like the bend but don't break defense, but they have made teams kick a lot of field goals and there's only been a few times they have really pooched the team. The offense right now is a far far bigger concern than the D. 

[DR. CFL]

Bend and don't tackle defence maybe more accurate

[Goalie]

Bend and don't tackle defence maybe more accurate

True if you've only watched like 3 games. 

 

Here are our losses, keep in mind not all points score for the other team were because of the D either, special teams and offensive **** ups lead to several points scored.. Not an ETCH fan and predicted the same but..... to be  fair...

 

26-3 Edmonton 3 points for our offense? Yeah let's blame ETCH

23-17 SASK, that was the game where we turned the ball over 5 times, but let's blame the D

38-21 Toronto, that was on a tuesday after we played SASK, 3 or 4 days later... D was gassed by the 4th but kept the team in it up until that point

35-30 sask in sask... Labour Day, Offense had a chance but couldn't move the ball, lets blame the d tho

30-24 sask, banjo bowl, turnovers cost us that game but again let's blame the d

26-9 vs bc in bc, Willy got hurt and that game was close until the 4th quarter, that was when our offense couldn't move the ball at all once willy got hurt, let's again blame the D tho

16-11 vs hamilton, remember that one? had a chance to win on the last play of the game but didn't, let's blame the D though even though our offense couldn't score 2 touchdowns

 

The last 2 games have been blowouts so those 2 teams, yeah... they have sucked but those 2 games is not how the season has gone for us really

 

4 of 9 losses were by like 6 points or less

2 of our losses, actually 3 if i include the last edmonton game, we didn't score a TD all game

 

How can we blame the D again??

 

Like i said, not an ETCH fan but blaming the D when the offense hasn't scored a touchdown in 3 of our losses and 4 of our losses were by 6 points or less?? I dunno about that one. 

 

I'm not gonna go through all those game stats but... Just based on what i recall, just eliminating our own offensive and special team mistakes, we probably could have won 4 of those games if not more, when you lose 4 games by 6 or less and you are turning over the ball lots and making special teams mistakes, pretty tough to blame the D. 

 

I'm not an ETCH fan at all and thought it would be like this too but to ignore the offensive struggles the team has had is just blaming etch cuz you don't like guy, i don't like the guy either but... just because i don't like him doesn't mean i'm going to ignore the bigger issues we have. 

 

Is the D a problem? i suppose so, but is the offense a bigger problem? Yes it is and if you refuse to see that or admit that, then i don't know what to say

 

4 losses by 6 or less, 3 losses we didn't score an offensive td all game.. How can we blame the D exactly? maybe for 2 losses we can blame the D but when the offense can't score touchdowns in 3 of those games and we turned the ball over multiple times in those 4 games we lost by 6 or less, not sure how the D and Etch get the blame. 

 

Ignoring the last 2 games because most the season wasn't like that

 

in 7 losses we have given up an average of about 28 points a game, in those 7 losses, we have scored an average of about 16 points a game. 16.5 really.

 

How can you blame the D for the majority of those losses when the Offense has only average 16.5 points a game in those losses. 16.5 points won't win you many games at all. 

 

Really wish i could find the stat on how many turnovers we have had and how many points it cost us in those 7 losses, cuz my guess.. just based on memory, it's quite a bit for sure. Can go on and on about the last 2 games but those last 2 games isn't what we've seen this season really, well it is, but not in terms of what the defense has done this season, those last 2 games are more of a reflection of what the offense hasn't done this season. 

[Mark F]

not fair Goalie….using actually statistics to back up your position. 

[iso_55]

Statistics are for losers.

[TBieber]

Bombers have 42 turnovers, and given up 94 points off of them.

 

In wins: 14 turnovers (2.3/g), 16 points off (2.7/g)

In losses: 28 turnovers (3.1/g), 78 points off (8.7/g)

 

Offence has turned the ball over atleast once in every game with a breakdown of:

1 - 1

2 - 8

3 - 3

4+ - 3

 

Bombers have 28 takeaways, and scored 69 points off of them.

 

In wins: 16 takeaways (2.7/g), 53 points off (8.8/g)

In losses: 12 takeaways (1.3/g), 16 points off (2.7/g)

 

Defence has taken the ball away in 12 of 15 games, with a breakdown of:

1 - 4

2 - 3

3 - 3

4+ - 2

 

The Bombers are 3-0 in games with less turnovers. That's obvious, everyone knows that teams are more likely to win.

 

Here's the issue. They're 3-0 in games with less turnovers and they've played 15.... They have lost the turnover battle in 11 of those other 12 games and have a record of 3-8.

 

Now, if it was 1 turnover per game and they were losing, blame the defence perhaps for not doing their share in the turnover battle. But when - in 14 games, you have turned the ball over multiple times, that is clearly a problem.

 

Let's make that clear.

 

The Bombers have a record of 3-8 when losing the turnover battle. The rest of the league is 4-49. Four wins. The Bombers have three.

 

While the defence hasn't been spectacular, they have certainly done their job in having the Bombers at 6 wins, when they should, or could have 3 or 4.

[17to85]

 

The Bombers have a record of 3-8 when losing the turnover battle. The rest of the league is 4-49. Four wins. The Bombers have three.

 

 

That is absolutely mind blowing...

[Mr Dee]

Here's where the Bravo should come in.

Both Goalie and TBieber have provided researched, and very interesting information. And thanks for that.

 

It just goes to show you what we may have forgotten over the course of the year when the losses started mounting.

This team, and this defence, was keeping us in games for the majority of the year.

Even the offence, when not turning the ball over, was working, albeit in a walking manner.

The running game, for all the obvious (and not obvious) reasons put a lot of pressure on a 1st year QB, who was just starting to figure out the game.

But the rest of the league passed us by, Willy got flummoxed, and shooting ourselves in the foot became our weekly game.

 

5 turnovers in the Sask. game was the start of it.

Geez I hate those guys.

[Mark H.]

Great thread boys...it made my day.  Nice to read something rational and non-twitter for a change.

 

But before we knock the offense too much, let's not forget Willy taking charge and engineering some of those game winning drives.  

 

[iso_55]

Here's where the Bravo should come in.

Both Goalie and TBieber have provided researched, and very interesting information. And thanks for that.

 

It just goes to show you what we may have forgotten over the course of the year when the losses started mounting.

This team, and this defence, was keeping us in games for the majority of the year.

Even the offence, when not turning the ball over, was working, albeit in a walking manner.

The running game, for all the obvious (and not obvious) reasons put a lot of pressure on a 1st year QB, who was just starting to figure out the game.

But the rest of the league passed us by, Willy got flummoxed, and shooting ourselves in the foot became our weekly game.

 

5 turnovers in the Sask. game was the start of it.

Geez I hate those guys.

STILL no reason to keep Etcheverry. There are qualified coaches that could do a job here... Not a fan. Won't change because of stats. 

[Mr Dee]

I would prefer an up and coming defensive genius who's ready to break out with a devastatingly fresh new scheme, designed around movement and the ability to fool the hell out of any or all QBs and OCs in the league.

 

Know any?

[iso_55]

I would prefer an up and coming defensive genius who's ready to break out with a devastatingly fresh new scheme, designed around movement and the ability to fool the hell out of any or all QBs and OCs in the league.

 

Know any?

I'll give you 3. DeVone Claybrooks is the DL coach with the Stamps & Huff was going to promote him to DC as he thought he was ready until Rich Stubler became available. Tony Missick is the linebacker coach here in Calgary & from all accounts may be ready for a DC position. He has NCAA & CFL experience. Barron Miles in Saskatchewan is supposed to be a very good coach & may be ready to step up to DC.

[gbill2004]

Thought I read Barron Miles signed a 2 year extension with the Riders last offseason.