Blue Bombers Forum

The Extra Point => Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum => Topic started by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:05:07 AM

Title: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:05:07 AM
Good:

- WIN
- No turn overs
- Brady "f'n" Oliveria. That's the game people wanted
- Zach played a good game, the lack of targets took away his options in the back half, but took what he had.
- Defence went the opposite route, let in some BAD things in the first half but **** them down in the second. Exactly what we needed when we needed it.
- Keric was solid. He still has more there. Could be a good one.

Bad:

- Those explosion plays against from scrubs. Scrubs.
- The third quarter disappearance. Again.

Ugly:

- Injuries: Demski is our unquestioned MOP and watching him go down was painful. Sterns, who I think took some flak early, has become an important piece. Him going down is also a huge loss. Especially at that position group.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pigskin on August 22, 2025, 03:16:29 AM
I am not worried about ND10. 9-10 days before the classic, Nic will be fine. Sterns could be gone for awhile.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: bunker on August 22, 2025, 03:20:04 AM
Agree with Jesse.
Will add:
Good:
O-line: opened holes for Brady. Often gave Zach time but no one was open.
Kick coverage was solid and has been all year.
Sergio was perfect on the night.
Bad:
Lawson's coverage on many plays.
Ugly:
Wilson's missed tackle on Theis.
Having to play a half with a receiving core of Mitchell, Wheatfall, Corcoran, Clercius, and Strevler.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:30:24 AM
Quote from: bunker on August 22, 2025, 03:20:04 AMAgree with Jesse.
Will add:
Good:
O-line: opened holes for Brady. Often gave Zach time but no one was open.
Kick coverage was solid and has been all year.
Sergio was perfect on the night.
Bad:
Lawson's coverage on many plays.
Ugly:
Wilson's missed tackle on Theis.
Having to play a half with a receiving core of Mitchell, Wheatfall, Corcoran, Clercius, and Strevler.

On one hand, I'm glad that they put Wilson in for Streveler on SY. On the other hand, I can't fathom why Streveler is seen as a better option at WR than Logan would be, who is a receiving back.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 03:31:32 AM
Quote from: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:30:24 AMOn one hand, I'm glad that they put Wilson in for Streveler on SY. On the other hand, I can't fathom why Streveler is seen as a better option at WR than Logan would be, who is a receiving back.
Strev is better blocker than Logan
That's why he was in

Logan also got reps

Based on the score, opponent, physical Mtl D etc. He was the better choice at the time

Good decision and he helped us win the ball game

Lucky to have Strev, can do a lot of things as Lapo pointed out

Logan needs time to get to game speed imo, will be a good asset down the stretch
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pete on August 22, 2025, 03:33:16 AM
Add Sheahan to the good.
Add Lawson/Thomas/Smeckel to the bad - did nothing
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 03:36:52 AM
Quote from: bunker on August 22, 2025, 03:20:04 AMAgree with Jesse.
Will add:
Good:
O-line: opened holes for Brady. Often gave Zach time but no one was open.
Kick coverage was solid and has been all year.
Sergio was perfect on the night.
Bad:
Lawson's coverage on many plays.
Ugly:
Wilson's missed tackle on Theis.
Having to play a half with a receiving core of Mitchell, Wheatfall, Corcoran, Clercius, and Strevler.

I don't know if Mitchell can morph into a semi-useful receiver but he sure hasn't impressed so far.  Walters boosted the DB quotient last week by bringing in 2, he needs to do the same for receivers this week and bring in a couple of experienced vets that can help out if called upon.  Can't think of any off hand other than Reggie White, but there must be a few TC cuts from around the league that are still in decent playing shape.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Slingin Sammy on August 22, 2025, 03:37:12 AM
Quote from: bunker on August 22, 2025, 03:20:04 AMAgree with Jesse.
Will add:
Good:
O-line: opened holes for Brady. Often gave Zach time but no one was open.
Kick coverage was solid and has been all year.
Sergio was perfect on the night.
Bad:
Lawson's coverage on many plays.
Ugly:
Wilson's missed tackle on Theis.
Having to play a half with a receiving core of Mitchell, Wheatfall, Corcoran, Clercius, and Strevler.
Lawson needs to be replaced before we play Sask; it's clear why he was cut after TC...but oddly he seemed to be as ineffective as M Bridges who we tried to develop over the last 2 years.  If Parker isn't ready, then move Vaval or Houston to that spot...I'd think Vaval moving to field corner makes more sense as Houston has been an effective boundary corner at an all star level.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 03:38:38 AM
Quote from: Pete on August 22, 2025, 03:33:16 AMAdd Sheahan to the good.
Add Lawson/Thomas/Smeckel to the bad - did nothing
Amazing punting game
The anti Sheahan crowd got really quiet for some reason lol
Lock this guy up long term, got a keeper there
I always loved his directional punting and he appears to be only but improving
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:40:01 AM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 03:36:52 AMI don't know if Mitchell can morph into a semi-useful receiver but he sure hasn't impressed so far.  Walters boosted the DB quotient last week by bringing in 2, he needs to do the same for receivers this week and bring in a couple of experienced vets that can help out if called upon.  Can't think of any off hand other than Reggie White, but there must be a few TC cuts from around the league that are still in decent playing shape.

Hoping for Pokey at the end of the month.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Stats Junkie on August 22, 2025, 05:32:23 AM
Quote from: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:30:24 AMOn one hand, I'm glad that they put Wilson in for Streveler on SY. On the other hand, I can't fathom why Streveler is seen as a better option at WR than Logan would be, who is a receiving back.
My guess would be Logan is only familiar with select portions of the receiver playbook which limits the variety of plays you can call. As a QB, Streveler is more familiar with receiver trees which allows the Bombers to run more of the playbook.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: BLUEBOMBER on August 22, 2025, 06:49:15 AM
Teams have learned to exploit our secondary... getting Houston back will be good but I think we really need to look at the safety position..
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 22, 2025, 08:22:26 AM
Quote from: Stats Junkie on August 22, 2025, 05:32:23 AMMy guess would be Logan is only familiar with select portions of the receiver playbook which limits the variety of plays you can call. As a QB, Streveler is more familiar with receiver trees which allows the Bombers to run more of the playbook.

Yup, I'll add to that that Strev is generally pretty smart (even with the "aw shucks").  And didn't Strev do some RECing in the past like HS or U?  He's actually built like a stout clutch REC.  Too bad his one reception was taken away (can't remember why, penalty?).

Strev looked great out there blocking and running routes.  The only thing is he looked like he was dying every time he came off... totally not used to that much running!!
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 22, 2025, 08:24:10 AM
Quote from: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 03:31:32 AMLogan needs time to get to game speed imo, will be a good asset down the stretch

Ya, Logan clearly is either slow from injury, rusty, or just not having the game slow down.  He's plodding and not seeing things well.

I'm pretty sure we think he'll shake that off and get back to what we signed him for.  Good players will do this after only 1-2 (maybe 3) games.  He'll have to improve fast, we sure need it now!
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 22, 2025, 08:37:14 AM
Good:

Important win.  Found a way.  Down our 2 best RECs (and our #2 as a WR!) with a half to play with a close -3 score... we could have easily folded and/or gotten steamrolled.  (If you offered me a bet in that situation I may have taken MTL!) Have to hand it to the entire org on being well prepared for this one.

Very pleased and proud.  Keep up the progress and the sky's the limit.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: peg_city on August 22, 2025, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: BLUEBOMBER on August 22, 2025, 06:49:15 AMTeams have learned to exploit our secondary... getting Houston back will be good but I think we really need to look at the safety position..

The issue is, I think Houston will play in Vaval's spot. We still have to deal with Lawson getting beat for a 30 yard+ play every game, until Parker gets back.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: BomberFan73 on August 22, 2025, 12:30:00 PM

Good:
I loved when Allen & Vaval (at different times) stood over an Al after a collision unfazed while the Al was down.
Zach had a good game, let's hope he can keep that level from here out.
Bad:
Zach still took too many hits
My stress levels seeing Demski down
3rd Q play
D Lawson coverage
Ugly:
Mont D letting Brady rumble for 200 yards  ;D
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: BlueInCgy on August 22, 2025, 12:42:48 PM
Great

Brady

Good

Willy
Zach
Holm

Bad

As much fun as it was to watch Streveler not play QB and not be a running back, the fact that we had our #2 in as a blocker was somewhat terrifying.

Secondary was atrocious at times.  Allen pulling up before Hollis caught the first ball was downright bad.

Time count penalty in Q2.

The challenge flag being again sown into MOS pocket.

Ugly

Tackling.  Use your arms.  Stop with the body checking people forward,
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: blue_or_die on August 22, 2025, 02:12:22 PM
Additions:

Good:
- Zach had a few plays where he was pressured, rolled out and completed passes on the run. This used to be our expectation but it's 2025 and now it's a little more of the exception. Would love if this is a preview of him getting back to that baller mentality/ability even if he is older. I don't know if this is a Zach thing or Hogan thing. I'm kinda leaning toward the latter, as Hogan decided to be good this week and feed the Brady beast and you can see what that did for the rest of the offense, even down like 5 receivers or whatever. More of this, please.

Bad:
- Although they didn't "run all over us", similar to the Morgan-to-Hollins explosions plays (puke), there were several "explosion" plays on their scampers, some of which were runs on second and long-ish that just shouldn't have happened. Front 7 should have done a better job against scrubs on the ground. I know I'm being picky here

Ugly:
- Yo mamma
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: blue_gold_84 on August 22, 2025, 02:31:02 PM
Quote from: blue_or_die on August 22, 2025, 02:12:22 PMUgly:
- Yo mamma

(https://c.tenor.com/eVZ_uOSR7JsAAAAC/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pete on August 22, 2025, 02:34:00 PM
Quote from: BLUEBOMBER on August 22, 2025, 06:49:15 AMTeams have learned to exploit our secondary... getting Houston back will be good but I think we really need to look at the safety position..
Allens looked good at safety and will only get better. He provides a physical presence that Alexander used to earlier in his career.
We have enough bigger problems in secondary and interior dline.
I could see both Houston and Parker at corner with Vaval backing up and kr.
Likely makes Logan odd man out but that would just complete our dismal record with free agent signings not playing
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:27:02 PM
With all the secondary talk.

Morgan threw for under 200 yards. We had a roughish start but didn't let it go all game.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: peg_city on August 22, 2025, 12:23:34 PMThe issue is, I think Houston will play in Vaval's spot. We still have to deal with Lawson getting beat for a 30 yard+ play every game, until Parker gets back.
overstated on the negative and he isn't that bad, yes will get burnt at TIMES

he got burnt on a double move early by Hollins and played a little too deep after that

He is a good depth player that we could develop

Yes an issue for now but we will sort it out

Yes Parker back is key and so is Houston
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: blue_gold_84 on August 22, 2025, 03:51:44 PM
Quote from: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 03:27:02 PMWith all the secondary talk.

Morgan threw for under 200 yards. We had a roughish start but didn't let it go all game.

Of his 198 passing yards, 132 were to Hollins - on five receptions. Yeah, five.

Lawson gets the goat horns for that, as the rest of the secondary played well, IMO.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on August 22, 2025, 03:51:44 PMOf his 198 passing yards, 132 were to Hollins - on five receptions. Yeah, five.

Lawson gets the goat horns for that, as the rest of the secondary played well, IMO.
nailed it, they picked on the weakest link, once we get bodies back the weakest link will be average and they will have to spread it around more
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pigskin on August 22, 2025, 05:06:15 PM
Quote from: peg_city on August 22, 2025, 12:23:34 PMThe issue is, I think Houston will play in Vaval's spot. We still have to deal with Lawson getting beat for a 30 yard+ play every game, until Parker gets back.

I think our Safety will be fine. But, I do agree that Lawson is getting beat far to often for big yardage. Getting Houston in there ASAP will help our D.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: Pigskin on August 22, 2025, 05:06:15 PMI think our Safety will be fine. But, I do agree that Lawson is getting beat far to often for big yardage. Getting Houston in there ASAP will help our D.

Parker failed at Safety, Allen is better physically suited to the position but lacks knowledge and experience.  Still think they need Kramdi out there to be the communicator and if he's playing SAM, Griffin is on the sidelines, so there are sacrifices with whoever plays Safety.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: The Zipp on August 22, 2025, 05:45:18 PM
under the not so great:

Dillon Mitchell - either he is not getting separation or ZC has no trust in him but down Sterns and Demski I would have thought it would be his time to shine...and he didn't.

I am expecting more from him, the rust should be off by now.  I can see why they had Case ahead of him.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: Pete on August 22, 2025, 02:34:00 PMAllens looked good at safety and will only get better. He provides a physical presence that Alexander used to earlier in his career.
We have enough bigger problems in secondary and interior dline.
I could see both Houston and Parker at corner with Vaval backing up and kr.
Likely makes Logan odd man out but that would just complete our dismal record with free agent signings not playing

Regurgitated complaint which is not relevant to this game, the interior of the D-line did pretty well considering Theis is a handful to bring down, they held the Als to 60 yds. on 15 carries which is dam* good.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: bunker on August 22, 2025, 06:12:20 PM
Fair point but the interior of the line (especially the Nats) does not get enough pressure on pass rushing, and better QB's will pick us apart. We get better pressure when we put one of the ends inside on obvious passing plays, but CFL offenses will commonly pass on first down.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 06:17:34 PM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 05:36:40 PMParker failed at Safety, Allen is better physically suited to the position but lacks knowledge and experience.  Still think they need Kramdi out there to be the communicator and if he's playing SAM, Griffin is on the sidelines, so there are sacrifices with whoever plays Safety.

He's not though. He's been out there all the time all season long.

He's second in team tackles.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 06:27:51 PM
Quote from: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 06:17:34 PMHe's not though. He's been out there all the time all season long.

He's second in team tackles.

If Allen is the lone Safety with a 4 man D-line, who comes off?

Hint: It won't be Kramdi.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: blue_or_die on August 22, 2025, 06:33:38 PM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 06:27:51 PMIf Allen is the lone Safety with a 4 man D-line, who comes off?

Hint: It won't be Kramdi.

What about all the times we don't have a 4 man DL? Which is pretty often...
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 07:10:15 PM
Quote from: blue_or_die on August 22, 2025, 06:33:38 PMWhat about all the times we don't have a 4 man DL? Which is pretty often...

I'm fine with Allen playing Safety when they play double Safety or 4 LB's, as all 3 play in those situations. It's a great way for him to learn the job and get reps, hopefully he develops the communication skills to take over the position next season. 
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 07:10:15 PMI'm fine with Allen playing Safety when they play double Safety or 4 LB's, as all 3 play in those situations. It's a great way for him to learn the job and get reps, hopefully he develops the communication skills to take over the position next season. 

That just seems to be what's happening most of the time.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: Jesse on August 22, 2025, 07:16:32 PMThat just seems to be what's happening most of the time.

Only when they play 3 man D-line, which I believe is less than 30% of snaps.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 08:13:09 PM
Brady is amazing, took him half a season to get rolling and yet he's already within 230 yds. of catching James Butler the leading rusher.  If all goes well after the Banjo Bowl he should once again be leading the CFL in rushing yards.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: bwiser on August 22, 2025, 09:51:56 PM
Good- possibly the best fourth quarter of the season, dominant
    -Colleros clean night
    -secondary showed improvement after a rough start
    -Jefferson pass knockdowns
Bad-Getting fooled on a razzle dazzle play
   -settling for field goals
   -Wilson dropping a sure INT
Ugly-piped in noise
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Blueforlife on August 22, 2025, 11:01:00 PM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 06:03:17 PMRegurgitated complaint which is not relevant to this game, the interior of the D-line did pretty well considering Theis is a handful to bring down, they held the Als to 60 yds. on 15 carries which is dam* good.
The complaints about our Dline are a little over the top.  We have a good unit.

Agree with you here bud
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pete on August 23, 2025, 12:10:56 AM
ok whose defensive line is inferior to ours? (name two teams) we are in the bottom third of the league which isnt good enough
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TrueBlue4 on August 23, 2025, 01:00:24 AM
I like Allen at Safety much better than Parker but he has a learning curve. Houston even if he plays in Sask will need a few games to get back in game shape etc.

Our tackling has been poor so far. Definitely needs to be worked on.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 23, 2025, 02:53:52 AM
Quote from: Pete on August 23, 2025, 12:10:56 AMok whose defensive line is inferior to ours? (name two teams) we are in the bottom third of the league which isnt good enough

Why?  What do you hope to prove?
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Pete on August 23, 2025, 04:56:33 AM
That our dline isnt fine, we have gotten into the mindset of maintaining rather than striving to continuosly improve.
 We have found some good young talent in players like Vaval and Allen, just wish we didnt have to wait til injuries occur before we play them
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: Jesse on August 23, 2025, 04:58:57 AM
Quote from: Pete on August 23, 2025, 04:56:33 AMThat our dline isnt fine, we have gotten into the mindset of maintaining rather than striving to continuosly improve.
We have found some good young talent in players like Vaval and Allen, just wish we didnt have to wait til injuries occur before we play them


You're falling into a narrative here. Football teams always find players due to injuries to incumbents. Rookies and young players need to earn their way into the roster, it's not given to them because of 2 snaps in a preseason game that fans latch on to.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:29:32 AM
Quote from: Jesse on August 23, 2025, 04:58:57 AMRookies and young players need to earn their way into the roster, it's not given to them because of 2 snaps in a preseason game that fans latch on to.

Unless their name is D.Alford or D.Schoen... or... or...  Some guys you just have to start week 1 even with zero injuries.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:33:21 AM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 08:13:09 PMBrady is amazing, took him half a season to get rolling

What's crazy is OTT didn't spy Brady.  They basically left him wide open in the flat as an outlet on most plays.  Most teams purposely take Brady away as an outlet.  And certainly after seeing Brady just light everything up teams will once again plan to cover him.

The even crazier thing is MTL didn't adjust at all!  They just kept taking the foot to the nads!  Thorpe brain toot?
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 07:54:24 PMOnly when they play 3 man D-line, which I believe is less than 30% of snaps.

Yes!  I don't know why people are getting mad that we are playing 3 man pass rush.  Because we're not!  I literally see it a couple/few times a game.  This isn't 2024 where every 2nd & medium/long is 3 man.

We are now very picky as to when we haul out the 3 man.

And we're not blitzing a ton either.  We have gone very vanilla 4-man pass rush this season, regardless of down & distance.

I for one think it's a good thing!  Especially when it works...
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:39:44 AM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 06:03:17 PMRegurgitated complaint which is not relevant to this game, the interior of the D-line did pretty well considering Theis is a handful to bring down, they held the Als to 60 yds. on 15 carries which is dam* good.

Theis may be slippery, but MTL is NOT a running team this season.  STE+rookie is a weeeeaaaak RB corps.  Only TOR might be weaker in talent.

You're right that our DL (and 7 and DBs) have been good against the run.  We seem fine with giving up the 3-5Y runs, don't seem to try the behind-LoS stops, or at line stuffs like most teams do.  And I think our plan works because most teams eventually stop trying to run against us, or they pare it back.  You'd think 5Y every run would be enough... but it seems not, because they can't keep it up.
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:42:28 AM
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on August 22, 2025, 05:36:40 PMParker failed at Safety, Allen is better physically suited to the position but lacks knowledge and experience.

Allen is more physically suited to be Loffler/BA37.  But I'm not sure we were trying to have Parker be them.  We may (may!) have been trying to use Parker as more of a Dequoy.  Not full Dequoy, but still a bit freer to roam and be more of a pass disruptor than a run-punisher.

I think Parker is more speed and nose than beef and wood.  Doubly so if he's now stamped with the big "injury prone".
Title: Re: Good/Bad/Ugly
Post by: TecnoGenius on August 23, 2025, 09:45:57 AM
BAD

DL & front-7 pass rush.  We were pretty ineffective against MTL's OL.  Are they really that good?  Is our pass rush success entirely dependent on the OL quality?  We can't find a way to dent the good ones?

We did do well with batdowns, so maybe to some degree we "gave up" trying to dent that line.  But we certainly weren't getting the big heat on the QB like we did against OTT!!  Blitzes weren't doing much either.

We have to find ways to get through the top OLs at least a few times a game, or it may be a long season.