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

[markf]

Bombers have played one game but have the second most passing touchdowns, 3 and the leader in rushing yards... Peterson, 130.

Ticats just didn't run the ball the other day.

As smart as these other non Bomber coaches are, they do some strange things.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Bombers have played one game but have the second most passing touchdowns, 3 and the leader in rushing yards... Peterson, 130.

Ticats just didn't run the ball the other day.

As smart as these other non Bomber coaches are, they do some strange things.

Comes down to the philosophy of the OC, some have still not embraced the re-emergence of the running game the Bombers success has spurred. At one time the CFL was all about passing, now half the teams have embraced running a more balanced attack with strong running backs.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

You're wrong on this one.  Watch it full speed again.  Rourke 100% could have kept running, and he was still going full speed when he got bumped.  And seeing as how the DB hit didn't even faze him he probably could have/should have kept running.

The DB committed before he could see the stride where Rourke's foot touched out.  Rourke was moving so fast that the DB had to decide on the hit before he was out.

What happened was Rourke saw the DB coming in and baited him into the hit and barely tapped OOB at the last second to force the penalty.  It's actually a smart play, if a bit shifty.

They showed many replays of it in-stadium (which you wouldn't have seen) and the crowd was very unhappy.  The jumbotron operator knew it was an iffy one to get people riled up, and give MOS a chance to challenge.

MOS clearly looked baffled when the penalty was announced.  You can see him moving his lips "it's against us?".  Then he does his "B.S." look.  He knows the score.

Finally, both booth guys on TSN were guffawing with the "ok, that's close" routine after they saw all the replays.  They know, as I do, that it was baited and not much the DB could do.

I know the standard for these calls as well as anyone, plus what the league calls vs lets go.  Add in the fact it didn't even budge Rourke, vs piledrive him into the signage, this is one that should have been uncalled.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I think Rourke was still technically "in-bounds" when the hit gets initiated - nothing had touched down (in this case his feet) on the white stripe.

That said, he was clearly angling to go out of bounds, was not going to get more yardage regardless of if there was a hit or not, and it was very close to his foot touching (it's a frame-by-frame replay thing.)  I have no problem with a flag there. I'd want one for Collaros under the same circumstances.

[Blue In BC]

You're wrong on this one.  Watch it full speed again.  Rourke 100% could have kept running, and he was still going full speed when he got bumped.  And seeing as how the DB hit didn't even faze him he probably could have/should have kept running.

The DB committed before he could see the stride where Rourke's foot touched out.  Rourke was moving so fast that the DB had to decide on the hit before he was out.

What happened was Rourke saw the DB coming in and baited him into the hit and barely tapped OOB at the last second to force the penalty.  It's actually a smart play, if a bit shifty.

They showed many replays of it in-stadium (which you wouldn't have seen) and the crowd was very unhappy.  The jumbotron operator knew it was an iffy one to get people riled up, and give MOS a chance to challenge.

MOS clearly looked baffled when the penalty was announced.  You can see him moving his lips "it's against us?".  Then he does his "B.S." look.  He knows the score.

Finally, both booth guys on TSN were guffawing with the "ok, that's close" routine after they saw all the replays.  They know, as I do, that it was baited and not much the DB could do.

I know the standard for these calls as well as anyone, plus what the league calls vs lets go.  Add in the fact it didn't even budge Rourke, vs piledrive him into the signage, this is one that should have been uncalled.

I watched it at full speed many times. The intent of the DB is irrelevant. If he hits him OB, it's a penalty and the refs called it correctly. I'll go with their experience and not your bias.

[The Zipp]

I watched it at full speed many times. The intent of the DB is irrelevant. If he hits him OB, it's a penalty and the refs called it correctly. I'll go with their experience and not your bias.

He touched him OOB - it was a glancing blow but by rule it could be and was deemed a "hit".  They called it this game - would they call it again - who knows..

[Sir Blue and Gold]

After Preseason O'Shea was talking about how we needed to find a way to get Cooley onto roster and see what he can do
This seems like the perfect opportunity to do so
 Peterson was great but it eas one game. With Streveler in BC was so worried about him running ( Buck's influence) that it gave him openings.With Collaros you know they are gonna beef up the box and not spread out the linemen
 Im not sure whose the better blocker but that may enter into it as well.
 Whether its Ayers, Sterns, or Vanderpool thats a decision they can make

For sure - and we've got 9 linebackers rostered - 6 primarily run stopping backers and 3 coverage linebackers (and 10 if we count Ayers). I get Ayers is good on the teams but come on.

[Blue In BC]

For sure - and we've got 9 linebackers rostered - 6 primarily run stopping backers and 3 coverage linebackers (and 10 if we count Ayers). I get Ayers is good on the teams but come on.

We'd be better to add Person as a rush DE if we're considering taking Ayers off the AR. However Ayers does add value on ST's.

The most beneficial change to get Cooley on the roster is if Wallace is equal or better than Vanterpool. Even then if he's not starting he has less value than an OL that is involved in every play.

I'd like to see what he can do, but many a CFL rookie has looked good in pre season only to be released as final roster is declared.

It would be so much easier if he had other skills like receiving or returning.

[Jesse]

We'd be better to add Person as a rush DE if we're considering taking Ayers off the AR. However Ayers does add value on ST's.

The most beneficial change to get Cooley on the roster is if Wallace is equal or better than Vanterpool. Even then if he's not starting he has less value than an OL that is involved in every play.

I'd like to see what he can do, but many a CFL rookie has looked good in pre season only to be released as final roster is declared.

It would be so much easier if he had other skills like receiving or returning.

Which the coaches clearly don't believe, or he would have been starting in game one.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Which the coaches clearly don't believe, or he would have been starting in game one.

Saw a lot of Eli last game in jumbo pack because he was lined up on the camera side of the field, but couldn't tell if they were also using Wallace outside Stanley or not.

[Blue In BC]

Which the coaches clearly don't believe, or he would have been starting in game one.

It may be that with Neufeld a game time decision that they thought they might need to have Wallace play RG. That said it did seem the management decided before TC to have a 3 import OL.

Regardless, we'll see what happens for Saturday. A possible change of ratio and use of DI's is a tough choice.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Which the coaches clearly don't believe, or he would have been starting in game one.

I'm already thinking of next off-season, the priorities should be to retain Wallace, Randolph and Vanterpool, Wallace will have other options so he's #1 to keep happy and ensure he clearly sees his future as a starting Bomber OG for the next 5+ years. Accommodating Stan and Neufeld if they want to come back for another year is secondary due to their age, the rest don't matter as much. Eli and Vibert are in the pipe, but they need more.

[TecnoGenius]

I'm already thinking of next off-season, the priorities should be to retain Wallace, Randolph and Vanterpool

If they think Wallace can be a legit starting OG (still not sold on it, but very possible), they don't have to do anything special for him this season.  You could not start him even once this season, and he could still command a big "starting 3rd year NAT OG" salary in FA, which probably would be paid by us.

That said, we could keep the bidding war down by specifically NOT starting him, beacuse that would limit his visibility to other GMs.

It is entirely reasonable, at least within the Mafia standard pipeline, to not be an every-week starter until year 3.  It's no slight to be stuck on jumbo that long.

[TecnoGenius]

Which the coaches clearly don't believe, or he would have been starting in game one.

It may be that with Neufeld a game time decision that they thought they might need to have Wallace play RG. That said it did seem the management decided before TC to have a 3 import OL.

100% right.  The game 1 OL starting line-up doesn't answer squat regarding what the "desired OL" is.  Neuf needed a NAT backup, and we wanted jumbo still.  Wallace could be desired LG all along and we still don't know.  Heck, I still think Randolph was/is desired LG!

And no matter who should be starting between Lofton, Randolph, Vanterpool, we really like to have 2 NATs on AR for jumbo.  So in any 3 NAT OL scenario we'll almost certainly have to AR Vibert as jumbo.  He may not be ready: so that would be another hint we desire a 3 IMP OL -- with only this Cooley requirement forcing 3 NAT look.

[TecnoGenius]

The most beneficial change to get Cooley on the roster is if Wallace is equal or better than Vanterpool. Even then if he's not starting he has less value than an OL that is involved in every play.

No, if you want/need Cooley badly (due to backup situation) and you want to start vs DI him, then Wallace just has to be "good enough".  He doesn't have to be the best option to start.  Wallace could be half as good as Vanterpool, and still get the start.  A super strong run game, with backup, trumps a diminished OL when it comes to Bomber ball.

It's annoying and slightly mind-boggling how one injury (Brady) can have 2-3 AR changes as a domino effect.  Such is the importance of a tier-1 NAT in the CFL.