Worst starter on the team

[mbrg]

Bucknor was tried and failed here. Strange how Bomber brain trust thought it would be different.

 

Traded Bucknor for Aprile.  That trade was a ten thousand percent win for the Bombers.

[Atomic]

Bucknor was tried and failed here. Strange how Bomber brain trust thought it would be different.

 

Uhhh it has been different.  He's working out just fine.  He's had some bad games but on the whole has been a pretty decent Canadian starter for us.  Started 25 straight games now if I'm not mistaken.

[bearpants]

Bucknor was tried and failed here. Strange how Bomber brain trust thought it would be different.

 

good point... never once in the CFL has a player struggled in one city and turned it around in another city...

[Jpan85]

Could give up 0 passing yards and Bucknor would still get dumped on. Could give up 0 rushing yards and Hurl would still get dumped on.

[mbrg]

The Bomber brain trust brought Bucknor here to back up Donavon Alexander.  Alexander was seldom healthy.  Bucknor proved to be better than anyone expected.  Certainly better than I expected.

 

You operate with the best of intentions, but that does not mean you can predict the end result.

[WBBFanWest]

Trick question 17to85 because the answer is our starting Offensive Coodinator

[TrueBlue]

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

[Noeller]

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Again, I come back to "If Bucknor is one of our worst players, then this team is pretty good!" .....Bucknor is just fine, and last year (at times) we raved about his work.

[17to85]

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

[Noeller]

 

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

 

You don't know enough to know if that's true or not.....not that that ever stops you

[Atomic]

 

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

 

 

Clueless

[TrueBlue]

 

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

 

Kinda hard to put blame a single player for some of that stuff without examples.

[TrueBlue]

 

 

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

 

 

Clueless

 

 

Alicia Silverstone.

[kelownabomberfan]

The entire o-line has once again been a steaming pile of hot garbage.  It is hard to pick between Greaves, Picard and Neufeld right now, though I think Chungh is starting to also show his rookie-ness.  I wish we could find four decent NI OL (including an NI tackle).  Other teams seem to be able to do it.  Why can't we?

[17to85]

 

 

 

 

 

Bucknor and it's not even a question in my mind, only places I'd put as contenders are Picard and which ever of Greaves or Neufeld you'd call the starter now. 

 

Hard to really avoid putting the title on anyone not on the o-line.  Removing Bucknor would have a lesser impact in the game than removing Picard or Neufeld.

 

But that's as I said before a function of an attention grabbing spot vs. a spot that you can traditionally hide a weaker player in. Doesn't mean the guy in the hidden spot is better, just that it's less obvious on a play to play basis. I also believe it's a function of the OL struggling as a group where as the secondary outside of Bucknor is pretty ******* good. 

 

 

"Traditionally" maybe you do hide a weaker player at Bucknor's position, but does that put him in the weakest player category by default?  I'll concede that Picard is in a more obvious, and more scrutinized position, but his gaffes have been more costly to the team than anything that Bucknor has done. 

 

Really? Cause Bucknor getting picked on has lead to a bunch of TD and 2 point converts being given up. The guy was **** last year too but he made a lot of tackles so people mistakenly thought that was good. No it just means teams were picking on him. 

 

You don't know enough to know if that's true or not.....not that that ever stops you

 

I could just have blind faith that the coaches are infallible. That always works right? Never been a coach made wrong decisions in the past right?

[sweep the leg]

You don't know enough to know if that's true or not.....not that that ever stops you

 

I could just have blind faith that the coaches are infallible. That always works right? Never been a coach made wrong decisions in the past right?

 

That's not a defense to you not knowing what you're talking about.

[17to85]

 

You don't know enough to know if that's true or not.....not that that ever stops you

 

I could just have blind faith that the coaches are infallible. That always works right? Never been a coach made wrong decisions in the past right?

 

That's not a defense to you not knowing what you're talking about.

 

it is when you've been around for the entire debate

[Bigblue204]

It hard to single out a DB when you don't know the call on the field. Just because the guy who catches the ball/scores is the guy bucknor lines up in front of, doesn't mean it was his assignment that play. There are so many variables to consider it's almost impossible to know as a fan. Saying that though, I do believe Bucknor is the weak link in the secondary, but not the biggest weakness on the team or even the Defence.

[James]

Bucknors really looked pretty damn good at times this year... can't say that for the OL. Particularly the center and right guard spots.

[Floyd]

Bucknor's a mid-range NI starter in the secondary

 

Stephens, Hinds, Butler, Pruneau, Brouillette are better

I'd put him on par with Berger, Rwabukamba

Cauchy, Woldu, Black are worse then again, they're not starting either...

[HardCoreBlue]

The entire o-line has once again been a steaming pile of hot garbage.  It is hard to pick between Greaves, Picard and Neufeld right now, though I think Chungh is starting to also show his rookie-ness.  I wish we could find four decent NI OL (including an NI tackle).  Other teams seem to be able to do it.  Why can't we?

I've never played offensive line nor coached it but I'm curious that when it comes to OL's poor play, there is usually no mention of the OL coach and his accountability. Is the problem with poor OL performance always/usually just talent?

[iso_55]

Anyone on the offensive line except Chungh. Take your pick.

[17to85]

Bucknors really looked pretty damn good at times this year... can't say that for the OL. Particularly the center and right guard spots.

but is that a function of the entire interior of the OL being weak compared to a strong secondary with one weak spot? Lord knows no one can tell what is happening on the OL either. I stand by my claims that because the OL has been such a sore spot for this team people just automatically zero in on it where as the secondary  outside of that one spot is actually very good. I'd take the other 4 guys and stack them up against anyones secondary. 

[Goalie]

Picard floats his snaps back to the QB and Is regularly man handled 1 on 1. Bucknor does get picked on lots. It's a toss up really.

[Floyd]

Anyone on the offensive line except Chungh. Take your pick.

 

You think Chungh is better than Bryant?

 

Chungh has been just as bad as everyone else... he's getting a pass because he's a rookie.