3 games, 14/20 194Y 2TD 13.9avg 25lg
Is he the next Chris Matthews (2nd stint) or Adarius Bowman? This is a pretty lame start for the guy who was supposed to replace Kenny or Schoen's production. I'm actually a little shocked he even has 2 TDs already: the EDM one was legit nice, but the HAM one smelled of garbage time looseness.
Is he being misused? I see him inside or medium a lot, with no deep looks. I don't know if he's running the routes and Zach is just ignoring him? He seems small. Maybe he's getting smothered by the big D's.
He's big money. What's going on? He looked like a world-beater and pinky-finger best friends with Zach in the PS. But so far this season? Not lighting up any all-star lists. Only 6.5 targets a game and much less completions per attempt than his peers? Are other teams double teaming him because he's the most-vet best-star we have?
Instead Nield (who did absolutely nothing tonight) seems to be Zach's early favorite.
From my vantage point, when I was trying to follow the all-24, it looked like in man every DB is smothering every REC. It's like no one can win their 1 on 1's or get open. Is our RECs coach and Condell letting us down too? That long would-win-the-game shot to Nield in our 2nd last drive and another deep shot to Demski earlier both had DBs so close they might as well been pronounced man and wife.
Is that what's also happening to White? If so, that means coaches are letting us down. The only mid/deep passes we're completing are in zone. And that's not good enough.
And I'm not against White. I watched his signing-presser and his Huddle appearance (just this week) and he seems exceptionally smart, astute, pro, dedicated, eager, earnest... everything you would want. And he's clearly got mega speed. But so far he isn't earning his steep paycheck.
Especially when other players are doing this:
2G 19/22 295Y 2TD 15.5avg 53lg Schaffer-Baker SSK
2G 15/19 287Y 1TD 19.1avg 63lg Mital TOR
3G 13/14 239Y 3TD 18.4avg 56lg Smith HAM
The above 3 are NATs too! They are supposed to get smoked by a star IMP like White.
I am thankful he's gotten 2 sweet TDs for us, and he's clearly part of the red-zone plan, but what happened to all those 80Y coverage busts he used to get regularly for HAM? His bread & butter was always the Speedy B style go route. Why can't we have that?
That's a little harsh. 194 yards in 3 games is on pace for over 1K in 2026 and about what he had in 2025. All that depends on whether he stays healthy.
He has managed to not miss many games in his career to far.
Factor in our receiving corps is diluted with only 2 import receivers. Wilson and White are seeing more double coverage as a result.
He can only catch what's thrown to him. From what I've seen, Tommy Neil's has had more targets that Tim White has, and that's not on Tim White that's on the play calling
Tim White will make place, but you have to get him the ball.
White is the least of the offense's problems, IMO.
I think the O-line needs retooling.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on June 26, 2026, 02:39:40 PMWhite is the least of the offense's problems, IMO.
I think the O-line needs retooling.
Mentioned by Jesse....
Neuf out, ellsbury played guard, replacement centre not as good as Ellsbury.
Tim White is easily our most effective offensive player through three games. It's not particularly close.
Quote from: markf on June 26, 2026, 03:05:11 PMMentioned by Jesse....
Neuf out, ellsbury played guard, replacement centre not as good as Ellsbury.
They were a train wreck last night. Not sure why they didn't leave Ellsbury at centre and put Eli at guard
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 26, 2026, 05:31:09 PMTim White is easily our most effective offensive player through three games. It's not particularly close.
I guess y'all are right. But I don't know about you, I don't really notice him doing things. There's no splash. No 65Y TDs. No outrunning everyone. No entire-field deep crossers. Absolutely none of the stuff that wowed us in HAM when he was at his peak.
He just quietly sneaks behind coverage for some "pedestrian" (by his standards) TDs. Ones I don't really even note that much. Demski even shows more splash on TDs.
As for "favorite" target: I think that's distinctly Nield. Even Demski seems to get more looks. Pokey seems to be only used as the home-run shot or zone sit. I think EDM may have messed with us by calling our deep White/Pokey bluff and taking away Nield. Dude was useless and invisible. And we couldn't cash in on our "top" IMPs drawing less coverage.
But I will say it is nice to have a real EZ threat again. White seems to be that. Though his modest height means that he has to have good separation if he's going to make a mid/deep play.
Hasn't been a good as I thought would be so far but double coverage is likely limiting him.
Give Zach more time and he will open up.
Not worried about him at all but I know where you were going with this Tecno.
It's a double edge sword problem. Is the OL better and providing better protection. Or is better protection negated by using 3 Canadian receivers?
Neild is a pretty good receiver and better than many imports we've used. OTOH, we've lost quite a bit of our 50/50 ball receivers like a Lawler type player. I'd say we've generally lost some height, weight and speed overall.
Using Daniels more as the season progresses changes the " size " dynamic somewhat.
It will take a few more games to really know whether what we gained with 3 import OL is better than a 3 import receiver idea.
Obviously it depends on who that 3rd import receiver would be and who would be the 3rd Canadian OL. We have made the choice regarding the OL since our 3 rd Canadian is on the roster. The benefit measured against the extra receiver we won't know unless we do it.
I think we took a hit this week with losing Neufeld and switching 2 players roles.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 27, 2026, 03:20:05 PMI think we took a hit this week with losing Neufeld and switching 2 players roles.
Agreed. but we can expect injuries to happen. It exposed how thin we are at OL.
Quote from: Waffler on June 27, 2026, 03:23:45 PMAgreed. but we can expect injuries to happen. It exposed how thin we are at OL.
Yes but the surprise was moving Elsbury to RG instead of putting Eli there. One change better than 2 in theory. I'm still not sure what happened with Neufeld. It seemed they expected that to happen when they moved Vibert to the reserve earlier in the week. That allowed him to be activated for the game.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 27, 2026, 03:34:45 PMYes but the surprise was moving Elsbury to RG instead of putting Eli there. One change better than 2 in theory. I'm still not sure what happened with Neufeld. It seemed they expected that to happen when they moved Vibert to the reserve earlier in the week. That allowed him to be activated for the game.
Agreed. I don't know why you'd mess with 2 positions, when you could have replaced Neuf with Eli. Doesn't make any sense what they did and the result was a hopeless O line performance.
We ended the game with Cobb, Neild, Corcoron, Daniels, Demski (not close to 100% healthy) and White as our receivers.....honestly look at that receiving core, in particular the speed of that group and tell me you don't see why White wasn't open and thrown too much.
Just for good measure if you still need more justification count the hurries and distress throws Zach had.....
White is/was no issue at all.....
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 27, 2026, 03:34:45 PMYes but the surprise was moving Elsbury to RG instead of putting Eli there. One change better than 2 in theory. I'm still not sure what happened with Neufeld. It seemed they expected that to happen when they moved Vibert to the reserve earlier in the week. That allowed him to be activated for the game.
Another option was starting Eli at Centre and Vanterpool at OG instead of Elsbury.
I don't think he's been targeted ENOUGH. I also don't think Zach has had the time with the rushes to find him.
When Neufeld is back hopefully that changes.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 28, 2026, 01:40:25 AMAnother option was starting Eli at Centre and Vanterpool at OG instead of Elsbury.
Or you leave Elsbury at centre, his natural position, and you put someone else in for Neufeld. There was no reason to take Elsbury out from his position at centre.
White is a freak athlete, he told Ed Tait on the Bomber podcast the first time he ever tried high jump he cleared 6'-6", out jumping every member of the college jump team. He also placed 4th nationally in hop skip and jump trials and almost qualified for the US Olympic team.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 28, 2026, 01:59:43 AMWhite is a freak athlete, he told Ed Tait on the Bomber podcast the first time he ever tried high jump he cleared 6'-6", out jumping every member of the college jump team. He also placed 4th nationally in hop skip and jump trials and almost qualified for the US Olympic team.
Yep, lets not put the ball in his hands, heaven knows what would happen. Let's check it down to Tommy on the curl one more time.
I was never a fan of the White signing. He is not a threat in any imaginable offense.
Quote from: BLUEBOMBER on June 28, 2026, 04:00:23 AMI was never a fan of the White signing. He is not a threat in any imaginable offense.
At modest money it's a good pickup. Remember, he's not costing what Kenny is costing HAM.
He gives us a second speed / go threat. Everyone remembers what he did to rip D's new ones in ~ '22-'24. He has been on a downtrend though. Even with Bo slinging it to him he wasn't stellar.
But I can't argue with his ability to get into a TD spot fairly unnoticed by D's. That's very valuable even if we can't hit him in stride on the 50Y go.
Too bad we didn't keep Wheatfall: he had two decent seasons with us, and seems to be having a good season in Hamilton.
Quote from: PloenFan on June 28, 2026, 08:24:48 PMToo bad we didn't keep Wheatfall: he had two decent seasons with us, and seems to be having a good season in Hamilton.
Wheatfall quickly out ran Zach's arm strength, making him stop running and come back for the football is obviously not ideal. Pokey is underutilized as well, whenever he has to stop and come back for the ball the tacklers gang up on him and administer a physical beating. The QB that can hit these receivers in flight will set them free.
Quote from: BLUEBOMBER on June 28, 2026, 04:00:23 AMI was never a fan of the White signing. He is not a threat in any imaginable offense.
He has been a threat in every offense he has been in
Fan or not dems the facts
Tim White - CFL.ca https://share.google/xRkQ8GStfYasGhfyo
Quote from: PloenFan on June 28, 2026, 08:24:48 PMToo bad we didn't keep Wheatfall: he had two decent seasons with us, and seems to be having a good season in Hamilton.
I was more than content with letting him walk and signing White and Nield. And I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind.
So I'm not sure Zach called an audible on two separate occasions where we were second and 5 and he threw a bomb, of which both were incomplete? The last one was when we had the ball with under 5 minutes to go and were in the lead. We gave the ball right back to the Elks who then had great field position and scored with less than a minute on the clock. Why go long on that play when we needed to get first downs and better field position while taking time off the clock. In years past we would close these games out with ball control and Brady chewing up yards and the clock. If that was the play called I'd question our OC and if not that's on Zach
Quote from: Lincoln Locomotive on June 29, 2026, 12:40:32 AMSo I'm not sure Zach called an audible on two separate occasions where we were second and 5 and he threw a bomb, of which both were incomplete? The last one was when we had the ball with under 5 minutes to go and were in the lead. We gave the ball right back to the Elks who then had great field position and scored with less than a minute on the clock. Why go long on that play when we needed to get first downs and better field position while taking time off the clock. In years past we would close these games out with ball control and Brady chewing up yards and the clock. If that was the play called I'd question our OC and if not that's on Zach
I love the deep shots one-on-one. See my old 2024(?) thread "BE BOLD". That's how teams that deserve to win win. See: 2023 GC.
And our run game is so mediocre right now that it's a struggle and crapshoot to get 5Y with Brady, especially since the whole D is keying on Brady. And our short pass and screen is horrendously bad. A deep shot might actually be the highest percentage play for us!!
Zach got the match-up he wanted, the isolation he wanted, and he had big body Nield on a smaller guy. The ball was in a good position. The only problem was these DBs are doing this hip-pocket I'm-gonna-slow-you-down-without-DPI thing a lot this year. Or your guy is a middling NAT and not a top NAT (a la KSB) and can't win 50/50: looking at you Nield.
Quote from: PloenFan on June 28, 2026, 08:24:48 PMToo bad we didn't keep Wheatfall: he had two decent seasons with us, and seems to be having a good season in Hamilton.
Wheatie didn't really help in the ESF. And we were going more NAT-based. We did the right thing dropping him. I think Singer can be as good as Wheatie. I think Mafia recognized he reached his ceiling and cranium capacity was limited.
He will do better for BLM, but he'll remain a middling guy.
Quote from: Tecno on June 29, 2026, 07:49:38 AMI love the deep shots one-on-one. See my old 2024(?) thread "BE BOLD". That's how teams that deserve to win win. See: 2023 GC.
And our run game is so mediocre right now that it's a struggle and crapshoot to get 5Y with Brady, especially since the whole D is keying on Brady. And our short pass and screen is horrendously bad. A deep shot might actually be the highest percentage play for us!!
Zach got the match-up he wanted, the isolation he wanted, and he had big body Nield on a smaller guy. The ball was in a good position. The only problem was these DBs are doing this hip-pocket I'm-gonna-slow-you-down-without-DPI thing a lot this year. Or your guy is a middling NAT and not a top NAT (a la KSB) and can't win 50/50: looking at you Nield.
We have to be able to take those shots. And we can't use hindsight to say if it was a bad move if the process was correct.
Quote from: Jesse on June 29, 2026, 11:13:54 AMWe have to be able to take those shots. And we can't use hindsight to say if it was a bad move if the process was correct.
In context I disagree. We needed to maintain control of the ball and TOP. It was a high risk play that wasn't needed in that situation.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 29, 2026, 01:05:46 PMIn context I disagree. We needed to maintain control of the ball and TOP. It was a high risk play that wasn't needed in that situation.
I understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.
Quote from: Jesse on June 29, 2026, 02:49:30 PMI understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.
If that was the last series of the 1st half then yes. In the last few minutes of the game while nursing a very small lead then no.
I put that in the context that we've struggled stopping opponents in those situations from scoring. Succeeding with a deep shot is a bonus and a play to win type of strategy. I would have preferred playing to not lose in this particular situation.
Again, considering we had allowed 2 100+ yard drives and allowed Fajardo completing passes at will, this was a very high risk.
We've seen this type of play in other games at other times where it made more sense. Part of the question is whether this was the called play or a Collaros decision based on his read of the defence?
I tend to think this was a called play. Reality suggests we should have had a bunch of quick short pass routes to allow players like Demski or White to shed a tackle for 5 or 6 yards.
Quote from: Lincoln Locomotive on June 29, 2026, 12:40:32 AMSo I'm not sure Zach called an audible on two separate occasions where we were second and 5 and he threw a bomb, of which both were incomplete? The last one was when we had the ball with under 5 minutes to go and were in the lead. We gave the ball right back to the Elks who then had great field position and scored with less than a minute on the clock. Why go long on that play when we needed to get first downs and better field position while taking time off the clock. In years past we would close these games out with ball control and Brady chewing up yards and the clock. If that was the play called I'd question our OC and if not that's on Zach
I agree. I also thought ball control was more important. After his fumble BO20 was running angry. He ended up with a 6 yard average, and was picking up good yardage receiving. 19 touches in a game for BO20 is not enough.
Quote from: Jesse on June 29, 2026, 02:49:30 PMI understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.
If Fajardo was the Bombers QB in that situation good chance they win the game, we've seen it countless times, in hurry up mode Fajardo is very good, he knows where he's throwing before he snaps the ball, much like Trevor Harris. The key is to throw quick passes that are hard to defend against, Zach gambled on a long bomb with poor odds of success and lost the game.
It's the same as the last two years. No protection. No time to throw anywhere but short. Who will we beat
Quote from: Jesse on June 29, 2026, 02:49:30 PMI understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.
I'm slightly more on your side on this one
you take what the D gives and if you get man you take a shot
I also would have preferred to nickel and dime but spare change isn't always available so you gotta play the big slots
at that point in the ball game one big shot and we likely win, our big shot failed, dems the breaks
it's a really fine line, doesn't mean the short shots would have worked either, easy to say after, if we would have taken smaller shots and not get the 1st, the narrative would be been should have passed for longer LOL
Quote from: Pigskin on June 29, 2026, 04:13:08 PMI agree. I also thought ball control was more important. After his fumble BO20 was running angry. He ended up with a 6 yard average, and was picking up good yardage receiving. 19 touches in a game for BO20 is not enough.
Even in his busiest seasons, Brady has only averaged around 16-17 touches a game. I think you're overestimating how much RBs are used in the CFL.
Quote from: Jesse on June 30, 2026, 01:25:21 AMEven in his busiest seasons, Brady has only averaged around 16-17 touches a game. I think you're overestimating how much RBs are used in the CFL.
The old adage in the AH33 years is "when he gets 20 touches, Bombers win". That's what he's referring to.
In this case 19 is close enough. It was one of Brady's nights, except for that fumble that may have cost the game (just like the ESF). Glad to see he started putting in an effort right after that, though. Shades of AH -- where the best thing you could hope for was a 1Q fumble so he got mad the rest of the game.
Gotta work on ball security though. The ball IS the cup.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 29, 2026, 03:37:21 PMIf that was the last series of the 1st half then yes. In the last few minutes of the game while nursing a very small lead then no.
Except the D is thinking that exact thing, and that's why we got the 1-on-1 we wanted! The final drive you can't take that shot because that's when the D blanket covers everything mid/deep.
You have it backwards.
Besides, do you really think the odds of Brady getting 5 with a stuffed box, or a short curl/slant to a NAT is any better than the iso shot we desperately wanted?? I don't. I don't have faith in any aspect of our game. Nothing is 80% for us. Every decent pickup is a struggle. So if every pass is a 25% affair, why not get 30Y for your troubles?
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 29, 2026, 03:37:21 PMWe've seen this type of play in other games at other times where it made more sense. Part of the question is whether this was the called play or a Collaros decision based on his read of the defence?
Buck & Condell's schemes for Zach are they always give him a variety of options. We never do that 3rd & 3 "only 1-2 options for the QB, everything else is clearing/blocking/decoy" like MTL did in the '23 GC. Zach always gets 3-6(!) options and he picks the best one. I think he made the right call, and I think he'll do it again.
Now ask yourself, if Zach threw it to Philpot The Greater or Mital, is it a completion? Yes it is. The problem wasn't Condell, or Zach. It was Nield. He's just not good enough, yet we throw to him like he is? Not saying he can't improve (as Mital has), but right now he's not winning any 50/50 balls.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 29, 2026, 01:05:46 PMIn context I disagree. We needed to maintain control of the ball and TOP.
Wouldn't have helped at all unless we decided we were in 3 down territory. And with that much time on the clock MOS would never think that way. Therefore we weren't going to have a long drive by trying to dictate what we were taking -- we HAD to take what they were giving us. And we HAD to do unexpected things.
Would you be happier losing throwing for 2 when we need 5? I wouldn't -- and people have bemoaned the 2/5 thing so much in the past. BE BOLD. We were probably going to lose no matter what anyhow. We all knew it. We just had hope, that was it. But we knew, like in 2014, it was going to take a miracle from the gootball gods to allow us to win.
I would give Brady more balls closer to 20
Quote from: Blueforlife on June 30, 2026, 02:44:07 AMI would give Brady more balls closer to 20
It's actually getting harder and harder to do that because you can scheme the a and b gap if you want to, and most teams do.
20 touches for Brady would mean a lot of second and seven.
we got big body receivers in Nield and Daniels, get the ball into their hands and let them run over the puny Db's. Running Brady up the middle is ok to throw the defense off, but it can't be our focal point if we want to stay on the field
Wow beating a dead horse. CFL and Bombers rely on other teams cuts. The gamble is they think maybe the guy was used wrong. But in reality, white can't go get the long ones like he did in Hamilton. The Nield guy is a fourth option. Face it. If he has to play vs an American DB he doesn't have the speed. Pokey, injured? And the tall guy? A never was.
All those guys might be 4 or 5 receivers. But see what we don't have. Edmonton killed us. Yeah the score was close, a testament to the coaches and players want to win.
We don't have the horses.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on June 30, 2026, 04:56:34 PMIt's actually getting harder and harder to do that because you can scheme the a and b gap if you want to, and most teams do.
20 touches for Brady would mean a lot of second and seven.
Second and 4 to 6 imo but yes though to get 20 agree but I would include screen passes in that 20 if they stopping the run
I believe the success of our run game will dictate our winning % and help provide much balance to a decent air attack
Come fall run the rock often, up the gut, great way to keep the O on the field
Quote from: DM83 on June 30, 2026, 11:26:18 PMWe don't have the horses.
2025 SSK proved you can win with substandard (or mediocre) RECs. Some of the year they
started 4 NAT RECs. Focus on the short game, the timing routes, and in-stride stuff that is basically impossible to stop, can be run by any dolt REC, and virtually guarantees at least 1 open target of the 5, and have an effective run game getting LBs closer to the box. That's all it takes to win.
Our problem is our O plan is exactly what it was in 2021-2023 when we had several superstars and not a single one was crap. You can't run that "normal" plan with lackluster RECs, iffy OL, and a no-zip QB.
So why didn't someone change the plan? Why doesn't someone change the plan now? Oh, that's right, our team only gets 2-3 1.2678-hour practices a week so it's all too late to change.