TC Report Day 8

[Jpan85]

Your not bringing 80 guys to Toronto.

1. Your not going to get reps for players you have on the bubble

2. The guys you have stayin home you know enough of to not have to see them in game action.

3. I can see if one of those guys gets hurt you go on and on about why they should not of been there..

[TBURGESS]

Your not bringing 80 guys to Toronto.

1. Your not going to get reps for players you have on the bubble

2. The guys you have stayin home you know enough of to not have to see them in game action.

3. I can see if one of those guys gets hurt you go on and on about why they should not of been there..

Of course we aren't going to bring 80 players.

 

1. Lots of the guys on tomorrow's roster aren't on the bubble.  Most won't start again for us.

2. Lots of the guys who stayed home don't have their spots locked up.

3. When players get hurt, I've never suggested that they shouldn't have been there, let alone going on and on about it.

[17to85]

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

[Jpan85]

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

[TBURGESS]

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

[Jacquie]

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

[TBURGESS]

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

 

Agree to disagree.  There's more than one way to be a good QB.  If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket.  If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed.

 

Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back.  He turned out to be a one trick pony.  His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him.

 

Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line.  Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

[TBURGESS]

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

 

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument.  Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions.  If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

[comedygeek]

 

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

 

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument.  Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions.  If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

 

So what do you go by, then?

You don't trust the coaches and argue they're bringing the wrong type of players to the exhibition game, but you say that the decision on who to bring is up to the coaches and you have no input on who that should be.

If you think they're the wrong players, that's a totally fair opinion to have, but then suggest who those right players are -- otherwise, it's an opinion based on nothing but spite for the coaches we've had in town the last 7 years. Which isn't a great way to analyze a roster.

[Arnold_Palmer]

 

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

 

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument.  Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions.  If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

 

You would have a point.. Except our coaching staff has had one year together not seven. We went from the laughing stock in the league in 2013, to a team fighting for a play off spot. You can look at the glass half empty but i'll give some trust to this coaching staff, We did go from 3-15 to 7-11 in one season. Not quite a winning season but compared to the mess they've had to clean up it's a nice start.

[JuranBoldenRules]

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  

 

And where will the QB be when he finds them?  In the _ _ _ _ _ _

[Jpan85]

TBerg is running in circles like Tuscalusa

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

 

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument.  Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions.  If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

 

So what do you go by, then?

You don't trust the coaches and argue they're bringing the wrong type of players to the exhibition game, but you say that the decision on who to bring is up to the coaches and you have no input on who that should be.

If you think they're the wrong players, that's a totally fair opinion to have, but then suggest who those right players are -- otherwise, it's an opinion based on nothing but spite for the coaches we've had in town the last 7 years. Which isn't a great way to analyze a roster.

 

I already told everyone that I'd bring more of the starters, less of the fringe players.  I'd bring the new players that are pencilled in as starters like Westerman and those who look like they are pushing for starting spots in TC.  I'd leave those players who are 3 and 4 down the depth charts in Winnipeg and use them next week if they still have a chance to make the team by that time. 

 

We need to decide on who our starting Receivers and RB's will be.  The O line on our roster will make it hard to analyse them.  We need to decide who our starting LB's will be.  The D line on the roster will make that analysis harder too.  

 

In short bring a more competitive roster that gives us the best shot at making the right decisions and give our new starters a chance to play with some of the guys they will need to be in sync with in the real season.

[TBURGESS]

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  

 

And where will the QB be when he finds them?  In the _ _ _ _ _ _

 

In the pocket or rolling out or scrambling.

[Jacquie]

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions.

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc.

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

Where did I say that? You are arguing using circle logic. You say you can't say who should play because you haven't been to TC, etc yet you feel qualified to criticize who will be playing even though you haven't been to TC, etc. You're criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions.

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc.

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

Where did I say that? You are arguing using circle logic. You say you can't say who should play because you haven't been to TC, etc yet you feel qualified to criticize who will be playing even though you haven't been to TC, etc.

 

Take a look at my reply a couple of posts ago if you're really interested to know who I'd send.

 

I told you why I don't blindly agree with the coaches.  That's not a circular argument.

[Rich]

 

 

 

 

 

Who should be there than TBurg than? Who should not?

Not my call.  Haven't been to camp to see them.  Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc.  Coaches make those decisions.

 

Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. 

 

The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument.  Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions.  If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.

 

So what do you go by, then?

You don't trust the coaches and argue they're bringing the wrong type of players to the exhibition game, but you say that the decision on who to bring is up to the coaches and you have no input on who that should be.

If you think they're the wrong players, that's a totally fair opinion to have, but then suggest who those right players are -- otherwise, it's an opinion based on nothing but spite for the coaches we've had in town the last 7 years. Which isn't a great way to analyze a roster.

 

I already told everyone that I'd bring more of the starters, less of the fringe players.  I'd bring the new players that are pencilled in as starters like Westerman and those who look like they are pushing for starting spots in TC.  I'd leave those players who are 3 and 4 down the depth charts in Winnipeg and use them next week if they still have a chance to make the team by that time. 

 

We need to decide on who our starting Receivers and RB's will be.  The O line on our roster will make it hard to analyse them.  We need to decide who our starting LB's will be.  The D line on the roster will make that analysis harder too.  

 

In short bring a more competitive roster that gives us the best shot at making the right decisions and give our new starters a chance to play with some of the guys they will need to be in sync with in the real season.

 

 

 

Sometimes the coaches do have a method to their madness.  June 14th - after the 1st preseason game and before the 2nd preseason game - is the first cutdown day.  Rosters need to be down to 65 players.  So that first preseason game is really the only shot some of those fringe players will have at making a case at staying.  These fringe players and backups are going to be injury replacements during the year, so it is important to get an in game evaluation of them even if they aren't likely to be playing.

 

I would also rather give more of the pencilled in starters more time in the 2nd preseason game to ramp up and get into a rhythm for when the games actually matter.

[TBURGESS]

 

Sometimes the coaches do have a method to their madness.  June 14th - after the 1st preseason game and before the 2nd preseason game - is the first cutdown day.  Rosters need to be down to 65 players.  So that first preseason game is really the only shot some of those fringe players will have at making a case at staying.  These fringe players and backups are going to be injury replacements during the year, so it is important to get an in game evaluation of them even if they aren't likely to be playing.

 

I would also rather give more of the pencilled in starters more time in the 2nd preseason game to ramp up and get into a rhythm for when the games actually matter.

 

Best argument for taking so many fringe players so far.  I kind of doubt, however, that players who don't make it to the second week of TC will become our injury replacements.  I'd hope that they'd come from the guys who just failed to make the first game roster and maybe those kind of cuts from other teams.

[Rich]

 

Sometimes the coaches do have a method to their madness.  June 14th - after the 1st preseason game and before the 2nd preseason game - is the first cutdown day.  Rosters need to be down to 65 players.  So that first preseason game is really the only shot some of those fringe players will have at making a case at staying.  These fringe players and backups are going to be injury replacements during the year, so it is important to get an in game evaluation of them even if they aren't likely to be playing.

 

I would also rather give more of the pencilled in starters more time in the 2nd preseason game to ramp up and get into a rhythm for when the games actually matter.

 

Best argument for taking so many fringe players so far.  I kind of doubt, however, that players who don't make it to the second week of TC will become our injury replacements.  I'd hope that they'd come from the guys who just failed to make the first game roster and maybe those kind of cuts from other teams.

 

 

 

Exactly the point.  It is making sure you keep the right players for the backup roles.  Seeing guys in practice is one thing, but you can't really judge how a player reacts to in game situations from just practice.  How they tackle, how they break through tackles, how they deal with actual full blown contact on the line.  All the things you don't do in scrimmages and practices.

 

The point of pre-season is really about individual assessment in how they play when the bullets fly to determine who is a "baller" and who isn't.

[17to85]

 

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

 

Agree to disagree.  There's more than one way to be a good QB.  If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket.  If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed.

 

Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back.  He turned out to be a one trick pony.  His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him.

 

Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line.  Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

 

You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. 

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

 

Agree to disagree.  There's more than one way to be a good QB.  If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket.  If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed.

 

Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back.  He turned out to be a one trick pony.  His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him.

 

Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line.  Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

 

You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. 

 

 

What in the less than a game of playing time behind a horrid O line makes you think that Marve's one dimensional and can't throw from the pocket?  

[dmillerywg]

 

 

 

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

 

Agree to disagree.  There's more than one way to be a good QB.  If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket.  If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed.

 

Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back.  He turned out to be a one trick pony.  His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him.

 

Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line.  Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

 

You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. 

 

 

What in the less than a game of playing time behind a horrid O line makes you think that Marve's one dimensional and can't throw from the pocket?  

 

Agreed not a large enough sample size.... Marve did bring excitement to the position in a time when Willy was struggling ....

[ddanger]

Here's my thought on this thread:

 

So Brohm has the stronger arm, but remains in the pocket. Marve can run, and from what I recall from last year, demonstrated quite clearly that he can escape when there's trouble. EXCEPT, he has bad knees. Everytime I saw Portis I wished I could see him in a game.

This year we all strongly believe our o'line will be better ( how could it be worse?? ), and we should see Marve get the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not he can stay in the pocket. If he has "happy feet" when he doesn't need them, and Portis actually shows something, then perhaps Portis moves up at the expense of Marve. And we have Janz on the PR. In Janz's case, I think it's the PR or nothing.

This game will be a huge test for Goosen and Chung.

 

Road teams always seem to take a rookie filled roster when it's the first exhibition game. They want to win the home game, the road game is strictly about evaluation.

[Geebrr]

Definitely agree Marve has not played enough to see if he can make consistent plays from the pocket.

Also agree that run first QBs never last long. I remember teams flushing Printers from the pocket and letting him cut the field in half.

[17to85]

 

 

 

 

If the opposing defence plays contain, they'll have to commit more players to the LOS.  That should open up receivers downfield.  The key is finding them and getting the ball to them.  Can Marve do that?  Don't know for sure yet, but he certainly has the arm for it.  

 

You want to compare Marve to Printers who looked like a world beater in Wally's offense which got him an NFL shot.  Marve's no where near that yet.  I'd compare him more to Reilly when he was in BC.  Not ready yet, but I've seen a spark that makes me want to see more.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. 

 

Agree to disagree.  There's more than one way to be a good QB.  If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket.  If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed.

 

Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back.  He turned out to be a one trick pony.  His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him.

 

Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line.  Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB.

 

You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. 

 

 

What in the less than a game of playing time behind a horrid O line makes you think that Marve's one dimensional and can't throw from the pocket?  

 

I've said many times Marve hasn't had the opportunity to show it or not, but that's the key, until we see if he can do it it's still a mystery. The CFL is littered with guys who looked good when they could scramble all over but failed to sustain it when forced to be a passer. I am taking a wait and see approach with the guy. I want to believe in him and hope he can prove himself, but until he does it's still a question that needs to be asked.