Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The D isn't totally blameless. Yes they have been pretty good but they did give up that touchdown march right before half last week that let the esks back into the game before half. They can definitely be better. 

Refs helped on that one...  Corey Watson sure seemed out of bounds, call on the field should have stood

Really think Wild had Reilly in the end zone and Thomas' fumble recovery was huge when the game was tied...

That being said, Hall keeps lining up his safety 20-25 yards from LOS

Posted

D is much much improved....but it was a low bar. If O can start showing as much improvement, we'll be getting somewhere...

Posted
44 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Refs helped on that one...  Corey Watson sure seemed out of bounds, call on the field should have stood

Really think Wild had Reilly in the end zone and Thomas' fumble recovery was huge when the game was tied...

That being said, Hall keeps lining up his safety 20-25 yards from LOS

I agree that there should have been a safety, He was caught behind the goal line without a doubt, but still even before the Watson review the D had plenty of chances to get a stop before and didn't. 

They are making progress but it's still not great. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I agree that there should have been a safety, He was caught behind the goal line without a doubt, but still even before the Watson review the D had plenty of chances to get a stop before and didn't. 

They are making progress but it's still not great. 

Without Johnny Adams and with Richie Hall, they are about as good as they can get...  the scheme is what it is.

Posted
1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

The D isn't totally blameless. Yes they have been pretty good but they did give up that touchdown march right before half last week that let the esks back into the game before half. They can definitely be better. 

On 1290 today, Rick Ralph cited statistics which place the Bomber defence in the middle of the CFL pack- not good but not bad either. That description seems to fit the current defensive cast but in order for the Bombers to compete with their gibbled offence, the defence has to be outstanding each and every game. That seems to be too much to ask of any defence.

Posted

If they're middle of the pack, statistically, considering what they did in their pants at McMahon, that's a testament to how well they've been playing aside from that game...

Posted
12 minutes ago, tracker said:

On 1290 today, Rick Ralph cited statistics which place the Bomber defence in the middle of the CFL pack- not good but not bad either. That description seems to fit the current defensive cast but in order for the Bombers to compete with their gibbled offence, the defence has to be outstanding each and every game. That seems to be too much to ask of any defence.

Which statistics though? How much spread is there between the middle of the pack and the bottom of the pack? If we use statistics the offense isn't THAT bad either..... Just saying. 

Posted

There has been some terrible defensive performances around the league. It looks as if offensive have finally caught up to the defences. 

Posted
1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Which statistics though? How much spread is there between the middle of the pack and the bottom of the pack? If we use statistics the offense isn't THAT bad either..... Just saying. 

You are correct in that statistics do not tell the whole story- for instance Willy is statistically the second-best QB int he league but I doubt that any team would trade Willy for their starter but we sure as heck would. As far as the defence is concerned, they have yet to be able to stop critical game-deciding drives by the opposition with any degree of consistency.

Posted
3 hours ago, Noeller said:

D is much much improved....but it was a low bar. If O can start showing as much improvement, we'll be getting somewhere...

It would be nice to see the team to be able to actually drive the ball down the field... more then once a game.   

It feels like unless we have a short field from a turnover or a big return... that the team has zero ability to make consecutive first downs. 

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...