Jesse Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 I think they have and always will have about a 20000 give or take season ticket holder base. If the team improves that will go up but I seriously doubt it drops below that 20 K mark. We only just hit 20 K for the first time a few years ago, when we found out we were getting a new stadium. Props to the fans of Winnipeg for sustaining it for the past 5ish years, but it's hardly a guaranteed number.
GCn20 Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 The only game Nicholls really played lousy was the Als game but he wasn't alone. Other than that, he's done well. He gives us a chance to win but this team needs so many things right to fall into place for us to win. Just a constant struggle. Yep and that's what he does. I think it was Dunnigan that said it best - he's the new Kevin Glenn. He's the 'super sub'. He's better than a backup QB but he's not the guy that can lead your team. But truth be told - it's hard to say. Drew Willy hasn't really led this team anywhere either. I said in another thread - the Bombers since their 5 - 1 start are 6 - 20. Drew Willy has started the majority of those games. Willy was absolutely terrible down the stretch last year. This year, up to his injury, he was IMO much much better - but we still were below (or at) .500 when he went down with injury, beating only Sask and B.C. IIRC. In other words.............. I don't think it's the quarterback Willy is 3-1 this season in games he started and completed. He was knocked out of a couple games early so shouldn't be considered the QB of record for those losses. He has a QB rating of 108 for this season thus far. You are right, this isn't all about the QB....there are other issues. We clearly needs a new OC, although, I was very impressed with the adjustments he made at half time against Edmonton. Another big issue is the revolving door we call an OL. If they had been able to protect Willy even a little bit, we wouldn't be having this hypothetical discussion. We would KNOW the truth because Willy would still be playing. I have absolutely zero doubt that Brohm or Marve were not going to win us a game this season. When they were in the lineup, they were the single biggest reason for our offensive inefficiency and therefore losses. However, with Nichols now in and when Willy was at the helm, one has to seriously wonder about other aspects of our offence as well. Both QBs, that we know are capable, have been asked to run some pretty questionable offensive gameplans.
Blueandgold Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Willy deserves credit for the loss in games that were clearly out of hand like the second one against the Ticats.
GCn20 Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Willy deserves credit for the loss in games that were clearly out of hand like the second one against the Ticats. Yea...forgot about that one. However, the score was 10-7 for Hamilton at the point Willy went down in the first quarter. After that the team completely fell apart. Pretty tough to hang the loss on him. Edit: Just realized you were talking about the 2nd game. yep....Willy deserves his lumps along with the rest of the team on that one.
Tracker Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Just because the offense came alive for 30 minutes last game against Edmonton does not change the overall picture. Why should it take until this late in the season to be able to identify a defensive scheme and compensate?? blitzmore 1
TrueBlue Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Nicholls played well after a cold start. Good for him as Jones threw him away for a sack of garbage. The seventh round pick of the 2017 draft begs to differ.
gbill2004 Posted October 5, 2015 Author Report Posted October 5, 2015 Nicholls played well after a cold start. Good for him as Jones threw him away for a sack of garbage. The seventh round pick of the 2017 draft begs to differ. Since most 7th rounders end up being cut, the sack of garbage might actually have more value. iso_55 1
GCn20 Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Just because the offense came alive for 30 minutes last game against Edmonton does not change the overall picture. Why should it take until this late in the season to be able to identify a defensive scheme and compensate?? A lot of very good offences have struggled mightily against that Eskimo defence. I thought that our offensive showing against them this weekend was actually one of the few times that Chris Jones has been exposed this season. BTW, when a team does a complete 360 in the 2nd half and goes from pitiful to dominating, it most definitely does change the overall picture. You saying it doesn't just confirms that you only wish to dwell on the negative and are intolerant of those not sharing your narrow scope. As for your question, it takes time to break down a defence as complex and well designed as a Chris Jones defence is. The fact we were able to do so at all makes me feel a lot better about our offence right now. Time of the season? What does that have to do with anything? It's pretty easy to spot your agenda in EVERY single one of your posts. Bombers play bad on offence in the first half....let's focus on that. Bomber's play good on offence in the 2nd half...let's focus on why it took them so long to do so. Why not give kudos to a fine offensive outing against a very good defence. I guess that wouldn't fit your agenda though. Mr Dee 1
Tracker Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 Someone here made a comparison between Willy and Kevin Glenn, but I think Nichols is a better comparison. Neither Nichols nor Glenn appear to have the right stuff to carry a mediocre team into the playoffs but can be real assets when used correctly. If we had not picked Nichols up for a pittance, I shudder to think how much worse the team would have been. DR. CFL 1
Arnold_Palmer Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 We could have been stuck with Brohm. Think we almost beat Calgary and Edmonton with Brohm playing? Nope I didn't think so either.
Jpan85 Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 If you average out Willy and Nichols stats for a whole season right now combined they have played 9 games worth of football. Its 4918 yards 24 TD and 10 Int with a 60% completion rate. Drew was 1434 8 TD 3 INT 68% (roughly 5 games) Nichols is 1024 4 TD 2 INT 57% (4 games)
Mr Dee Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 When you have more blowout losses than wins, that ought to be enough to tell you everything you need to know. I gotta ask you, have you seen that blowout-loss team, since the backup quarterbacking has improved? And the team record since Nichols' arrival has been.....? You have to answer my question first.
Tracker Posted October 5, 2015 Report Posted October 5, 2015 When you have more blowout losses than wins, that ought to be enough to tell you everything you need to know. I gotta ask you, have you seen that blowout-loss team, since the backup quarterbacking has improved? And the team record since Nichols' arrival has been.....? You have to answer my question first. The team has been more competitive since Nichols arrived, apart from the first game. But there have been zero wins. You can justify it because of this or that, but you can go back to the post-game comments of Kelly, Reinebold, Burke or Daley and you will hear very similar statements, that the team could have won if only (insert excuse here). Now then.....O'Shea's record pre and post Nichols is...?
iso_55 Posted October 6, 2015 Report Posted October 6, 2015 Just because the offense came alive for 30 minutes last game against Edmonton does not change the overall picture. Why should it take until this late in the season to be able to identify a defensive scheme and compensate?? A lot of very good offences have struggled mightily against that Eskimo defence. I thought that our offensive showing against them this weekend was actually one of the few times that Chris Jones has been exposed this season. BTW, when a team does a complete 360 in the 2nd half and goes from pitiful to dominating, it most definitely does change the overall picture. You saying it doesn't just confirms that you only wish to dwell on the negative and are intolerant of those not sharing your narrow scope. As for your question, it takes time to break down a defence as complex and well designed as a Chris Jones defence is. The fact we were able to do so at all makes me feel a lot better about our offence right now. Time of the season? What does that have to do with anything? It's pretty easy to spot your agenda in EVERY single one of your posts. Bombers play bad on offence in the first half....let's focus on that. Bomber's play good on offence in the 2nd half...let's focus on why it took them so long to do so. Why not give kudos to a fine offensive outing against a very good defence. I guess that wouldn't fit your agenda though. Agenda... that word is sure thrown around here a lot. Everyone here has an agenda. The people that want O'Shea to be here next year have agendas. The people that want him fired have agendas. We all just scream our agendas at each other trying to be the loudest. May the loudest screaming agenda win. DR. CFL 1
Mr Dee Posted October 6, 2015 Report Posted October 6, 2015 The team has been more competitive since Nichols arrived, apart from the first game. But there have been zero wins. You can justify it because of this or that, but you can go back to the post-game comments of Kelly, Reinebold, Burke or Daley and you will hear very similar statements, that the team could have won if only (insert excuse here). Now then.....O'Shea's record pre and post Nichols is...?Well, actually, the 1st game was the win against Sask., then we had the poor performance against Montreal, but since then, with Nichols, not Brohm, we have looked more like a football team. And that was my point. When we have a legitimate backup QB...we can be more competitive, and we have been. I wasn't using excuses, I was just questioning your blowout-loss wording, and was wondering if you feel that would be the situation had we had Nichols in any of those blowout losses...that's it.
Tracker Posted October 6, 2015 Report Posted October 6, 2015 My point has been that it is difficult and misleading to judge on the basis of one game, or even two, but O'Shea deserves to be judged on the basis of his entire record, including the win/loss ratio, but if the blowout losses exceed the wins, that rightfully should be an area of concern. Moreover, some of his decisions such as keeping Kuale and Walker around are baffling, to say the least.
Mr Dee Posted October 6, 2015 Report Posted October 6, 2015 My point has been that it is difficult and misleading to judge on the basis of one game, or even two, but O'Shea deserves to be judged on the basis of his entire record, including the win/loss ratio, but if the blowout losses exceed the wins, that rightfully should be an area of concern. Moreover, some of his decisions such as keeping Kuale and Walker around are baffling, to say the least. I get it, you're hung up on blowout prices, no, I mean the word blowout. Fine. I'll leave you at it.
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