Official Game Day Thread - BC at Winnipeg, June 12, 2025

[Blue In BC]

Not seen Peterson field a punt, now would not be a good time to see his first one.

If Brady can't go then we need Cooley to play otherwise we just have no depth at rb. Not sure what import they would take off.

Cobb is the best Nat on the PR. Would he take Brady's roster spot?

The question would be does he he get any reps in practice doing that? If not, then it's a valid issue. I wasn't suggesting having him do that in a game if he has no experience.

Our depth at RB will have to be Chris-Ike.  While that's not optimum, having depth for Canadian starters is always difficult. You can't just swap in an import, let alone one with zero experience in a regular season game.

Chris-Ike does have college experience as a RB. He's not B. Oliveria but for an in game replacement he'd have to be given that chance.

Cooley might be the next Charles Roberts given an opportunity but I think many are jumping the gun. Add to that if Peterson is starting, adding import depth with all the other issues means he's essentially sitting on the bench.

That isn't the best use of the roster and I don't think anyone wants to mess with the OL at this point.

If there is an option it might be Sterns out to get Cooley on the AR and then adding Cobb. That said, it still suggests a change at starting receiver to add " depth " at RB that may or may not see the field much. 

EDIT: A late thought. If Logan is healthy and Oliveria can't play, we could add in Logan as a receiver and depth at RB. He has experience at both and has 136 carries in 36 games with a 6.5 yard average rushing. 

We don't yet know whether BO can't play or whether Logan is capable of returning to the AR next week.

[Waffler]

I ag

The question would be does he he get any reps in practice doing that?...

Add to that if Peterson is starting, adding import depth with all the other issues means he's essentially sitting on the bench.

I don't see every practice, far from it, but I was there in camp the day they were trying everyone and his dog after the Logan injury. Peterson wasn't one of them.

As far as Cooley, I meant START Cooley and Peterson is the depth guy as before. I would not be opposed to using them interchangeably. Could be a thunder and lightning situation. MOS has gushed over what Cooley can do in game and I haven't heard him say as much about Peterson so I think it would be Cooley starting if we can get him on the roster.

[Blue In BC]

I ag
I don't see every practice, far from it, but I was there in camp the day they were trying everyone and his dog after the Logan injury. Peterson wasn't one of them.

As far as Cooley, I meant START Cooley and Peterson is the depth guy as before. I would not be opposed to using them interchangeably. Could be a thunder and lightning situation. MOS has gushed over what Cooley can do in game and I haven't heard him say as much about Peterson so I think it would be Cooley starting if we can get him on the roster.

I'm not knocking Cooley but I pointed out that Peterson had 130 yards in 23 carries. That's an excellent game by any standard. I wouldn't be sending him to the bench to start Cooley.

It's more about the ratio adjustment required both to get him on the AR and which other changes would need to happen. The main one being changing from a starting Canadian to an import.

In 2024 we could have done that because we were starting 9 - 10 every game. This year we're starting 7 so it's a different issue. There are trade offs that could happen but should they?

I think we'd have a different view if Peterson had 15 carries and ended up with 20 yards rushing.

Fingers are crossed we don't have to make these decisions and BO plays.

Oh and yes, Peterson wouldn't be my 1st choice as a returner but it might be something he could develop in the long run.

[dd]

If BO is out, Peterson is in and Chris-Ike is the backup, we'll be fine

[markf]

Does anyone know....How many penalties the Bombers got?

Can't find stats.

[Pigskin]

Does anyone know....How many penalties the Bombers got?

Can't find stats.

7 according to the CFL. BC took 5.

[markf]

7 according to the CFL. BC took 5.

Thanks very much.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

7 according to the CFL. BC took 5.

That's a lot for the Bombers, O'shea will expect a crack down on penalties.

[The Zipp]

i don't think there was single holding penalty called.  when i re-watched i saw a few by the lions not called

[Blueforlife]

i don't think there was single holding penalty called.  when i re-watched i saw a few by the lions not called

Yeah seen those live, pretty obvious as well
Refs still warming up

[TecnoGenius]

7 according to the CFL. BC took 5.

One of those was a bogus late hit OOB on us hitting Rourke.  Utter hogwash.  Rourke is a massive, fast runner and could have easily kept running.  The DB had to commit before Rourke barely touched the sideline.  And the hit didn't even impact Rourke.

Another was a completely unseen/unshown misconduct on Willie well after a play.  That would be extremely rare for him.

Another was a blatant pick play on man coverage, called IC.  That one had MOS baffled and irked.

I think we did very good on penalties.  We could have easily pulled some DPIs on those long bombs.

[TecnoGenius]

EDIT: A late thought. If Logan is healthy and Oliveria can't play, we could add in Logan as a receiver and depth at RB. He has experience at both and has 136 carries in 36 games with a 6.5 yard average rushing. 

Great idea.  The only way you can remove Vaval is if Logan is back.  And if Logan is back that takes care of backup RB.  However, that leaves us with just Peterson actually doing RB reps, as Logan wouldn't see any work there without injury.  That allows BC to shut Peterson down as the #1 game plan all week.

[TecnoGenius]

Never mind the torn hat. The new beard is batting a thousand.

New beard!  New beard!

[TecnoGenius]

Sayles was another one that did returns.

Not well, IIRC.  Fogg actually had quite a few really long ones, and even busted it a couple of times.  I think Fogg was our best returner in years until Lucky/Grant came along.  I was sad when we let him go.

[Blue In BC]

One of those was a bogus late hit OOB on us hitting Rourke.  Utter hogwash.  Rourke is a massive, fast runner and could have easily kept running.  The DB had to commit before Rourke barely touched the sideline.  And the hit didn't even impact Rourke.

Another was a completely unseen/unshown misconduct on Willie well after a play.  That would be extremely rare for him.

Another was a blatant pick play on man coverage, called IC.  That one had MOS baffled and irked.

I think we did very good on penalties.  We could have easily pulled some DPIs on those long bombs.

The late hit was in fact a late hit.

Rourke's left foot touched out and he clearly was not advancing downfield before Nichols made any contact. Yes it was close but not considering Rourke was going OB.  You could tell that by the angle and the momentum he had no chance to continue down the sideline.

Sour grapes.