Calgary @ Winnipeg

[Blue In BC]

The sad part is Jake Thomas got our only sack of the night in tonight's game. That speaks volumes of how bad our defensive line really is. A guy who arguably shouldn't be starting got our only sack. Boom, mike drop!!

Seriously. All game I was thinking we should cut him this weekend. Totally ineffective. We may as well start another rookie to see if he has upside.

Of course that would mean we'd have to have one available on the PR. Maybe we should activate Samson for next week and get him some reps. I'm not sure if Schmekel saw any reps?

[Jesse]

Seriously. All game I was thinking we should cut him this weekend. Totally ineffective. We may as well start another rookie to see if he has upside.

Of course that would mean we'd have to have one available on the PR. Maybe we should activate Samson for next week and get him some reps. I'm not sure if Schmekel saw any reps?

Schmekel say a couple reps at least. We have Woods and Adams, no need to start Jake if we didn't want to.

[TecnoGenius]

He doesn't start over Johnson and Wynn in Montreal. Ditto over Sayles and Hendrix in Hamilton. Same with Banks and Covington in BC. Toronto doesn't start him over Ceresna and Brinkman. Calgary starts Rose and Coatney over him no question. Don't see him starting in Saskatchewan.

How many of those are NATs?  None?  Unfair comparison.

Yes, teams generally never start NATs at DT.  They are about as rare as NAT QBs, or good NAT HBs.  But yet a select few teams have chosen, over the years, to start a NAT DT, and I listed some names.

When we had/have our normal 7 NAT starters, we chose to start Fatboi because we didn't have a 7th NAT we could put elsewhere that we thought was as good at their position.  Otherwise clearly we wouldn't start Fatboi.  Right now, we don't think we have better IMPs at DT to start, or we'd clearly start an IMP NAT.

The isn't Fatboi's fault, it's our scouts.  If you think Fatboi shouldn't be starting, and that what I"m saying is wrong, then explain why MOS/Younger are

Jake has never been a guy who should be starting and he's definitely not that now. The fact that we've got a subpar pass rush and are the worst in the league against the run are two huge reasons why he's a waste of a starting spot.

Fatboi's subpar pass rush just sealed us the game tonight... cough cough

Better than Laurent or Laing, what are you smoking?

Better than Laurent in his prime, no, definitely not.  Better than Laurent in 2023?  Sure, I'll bite, if it's not just about stats, but overall impact that HC/DCs notice.  And Laruent is retired now, so...

[TecnoGenius]

I just did a very quick scan of depth charts for all 9 teams. Looks like BC and Winnipeg are the only two teams that don't list DA's on their publicly-posted depth charts. Having said this, to derive the DA's, can't I just look at any import that's listed as a backup and assume that they are a DA?

For sure you can! ... When a team starts 7 NATs (+1 VETIMP).  Like we used to nearly forever, and like most teams still do!

Because we start >7 NATs when we don't have to, and because the league apparently hoards this information by keeping their special "secret sheets", who the heck knows the exact status of any IMP on our AR!  Your guess is as good as mine.

Even by carefully monitoring who goes in/out and when you may not be able to fully derive exactly who the 4 DAs are.  The only one we know with certainty is Castillo, eh?  And I guess returner Smith, assuming he isn't charted anywhere on O.

[TecnoGenius]

Y'all are still bashing Fatboi after tonight's game?!  Let me repeat my line again:

Fatboi's subpar pass rush just sealed us the game tonight... cough cough

Who here wasn't nervous as heck as Maier started driving the field again that they would easily score again?  Ya, I was.  I thought no way we stop them, as we pretty much didn't all night.  Mills was going to run for 35 again or Begelton was going to be wide open 20Y downfield in the soft zone.

Ya, Fatboi got the job done and made them kick it away when it was almost certainly 3-down territory for CGY.  You can rip on Fatboi next week, but right now I think he's earned some nice silence from the peanut gallery.  I look forward to watching the PVR to focus on Fatboi to see what good stuff he was doing all night long.

I'll tell you what's going to happen in MOS's pressers and coach show: he's going to tout Fatboi 100%.

[Blueforlife]

Thomas not good enough to start they cried.....

Love the support for Thomas from some and the haters double down, classic, he has always made plays, so proud of his longevity, yes not a top guy but you can't afford aces at every position

Wilson not good enough they claimed.....

Ok I'm sure few seen this coming what a game

Zach done they chimed in....

Overcomes adversity.

Scouts didn't bring in talent they suggested.....
We did ok.

We back! Great game keep it rolling Blue!

[Jesse]

How many defensive snaps are there in a game guys?

One snap does not mean you played a good game. Especially when they scored 37 on us.

And before you just cry, "hater". No one has said anything other than he's more of a role player. It doesn't take anything away from his long career with our club or all he's accomplished.

[theaardvark]

How many of those are NATs?  None?  Unfair comparison.

Yes, teams generally never start NATs at DT.  They are about as rare as NAT QBs, or good NAT HBs.  But yet a select few teams have chosen, over the years, to start a NAT DT, and I listed some names.

When we had/have our normal 7 NAT starters, we chose to start Fatboi because we didn't have a 7th NAT we could put elsewhere that we thought was as good at their position.  Otherwise clearly we wouldn't start Fatboi.  Right now, we don't think we have better IMPs at DT to start, or we'd clearly start an IMP NAT.

The isn't Fatboi's fault, it's our scouts.  If you think Fatboi shouldn't be starting, and that what I"m saying is wrong, then explain why MOS/Younger are

Fatboi's subpar pass rush just sealed us the game tonight... cough cough

Better than Laurent in his prime, no, definitely not.  Better than Laurent in 2023?  Sure, I'll bite, if it's not just about stats, but overall impact that HC/DCs notice.  And Laruent is retired now, so...

Sure Fatboi got a sack, but he was only double teamed on that play...

[dd]

Thomas is not the most skilled, fastest or strongest player out there, and at tackle, draws his share of double teams. The big thing with Thomas, slow as he is, is he never takes a play off, and always, always fights to get through every play. And admire his effort and heart

[RebusRankin]

How many of those are NATs?  None?  Unfair comparison.

Yes, teams generally never start NATs at DT.  They are about as rare as NAT QBs, or good NAT HBs.  But yet a select few teams have chosen, over the years, to start a NAT DT, and I listed some names.

When we had/have our normal 7 NAT starters, we chose to start Fatboi because we didn't have a 7th NAT we could put elsewhere that we thought was as good at their position.  Otherwise clearly we wouldn't start Fatboi.  Right now, we don't think we have better IMPs at DT to start, or we'd clearly start an IMP NAT.

The isn't Fatboi's fault, it's our scouts.  If you think Fatboi shouldn't be starting, and that what I"m saying is wrong, then explain why MOS/Younger are

Fatboi's subpar pass rush just sealed us the game tonight... cough cough

Better than Laurent in his prime, no, definitely not.  Better than Laurent in 2023?  Sure, I'll bite, if it's not just about stats, but overall impact that HC/DCs notice.  And Laruent is retired now, so...

The sack was great but it wasn't caused by Jake. It was a coverage sack and Adams flushed the QB and Jake cleaned up.

We don't have a 7th starter that could be in over Jake? Hmm, Neufeld, Dobson, Kolo, Demski, Woli, Brady, Ford and Kramdi = 8.

You can post all the nonsense you want but its clear Jake isn't good enough.

[theaardvark]

Jake Thomas fights for every rep, and give 110% on every snap. 

He makes plays, a knockdown last game, a sack this one. 

He may not be the best DT in the league, but no one works harder. 

Is that enough to be in the lineup as a starter?  With 5 DL on the IR, the Bombers are very lucky to have someone of his ability there to fill in.

As the bodies come off IR, he will return to being a very effective rotational player. 

For now, he starts, and would very likely start on any team with 5 DL on the IR.

[Blue In BC]

Thomas not good enough to start they cried.....

Love the support for Thomas from some and the haters double down, classic, he has always made plays, so proud of his longevity, yes not a top guy but you can't afford aces at every position

Wilson not good enough they claimed.....

Ok I'm sure few seen this coming what a game

Zach done they chimed in....

Overcomes adversity.

Scouts didn't bring in talent they suggested.....
We did ok.

We back! Great game keep it rolling Blue!

There you go again. The majority have said he is not good enough to start. That has been the comment all of 2023.

You define those of us that say about any player that as " haters".  You can call it your opinion but it is contrary to the majority of posters. That is why I continue to say what you say is not a truth but a misguided loyalty.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The sack was great but it wasn't caused by Jake. It was a coverage sack and Adams flushed the QB and Jake cleaned up.

We don't have a 7th starter that could be in over Jake? Hmm, Neufeld, Dobson, Kolo, Demski, Woli, Brady, Ford and Kramdi = 8.

You can post all the nonsense you want but its clear Jake isn't good enough.

It's pretty clear the Bomber coaching staff doesn't agree with your opinion on the matter. Sorry, you don't get to vote Jake off the field.

[Blue In BC]

It's pretty clear the Bomber coaching staff doesn't agree with your opinion on the matter. Sorry, you don't get to vote Jake off the field.

We don't need to have a Canadian starter at DT. If Lawson was healthy, he was expected to fill that role as starter. There was no need to employ a Canadian DT considering the number of other Canadians.

The real complaint is that knowing we had issues on the DL, we didn't resolve this with scouting of imports to take on that role. At least it doesn't seem we have definitive proof we succeeded in that search.

Obviously this was complicated due to large number of injuries on the DL,but really only 1 that is a DT.

So by default, we don't have another body that could really take snaps at DT. Samson is on the IR and a pure rookie. Schmekel is available but has not shown anything yet.

So I'd argue Thomas NEEDS to start due to the lack of scouting alternatives and the current injury situation.

Needing to start is not the same as he should be starting is the argument. Of course we don't get to vote on which player has what role.

The same argument would be made if Augustine was forced into a starting role. Again we don't need to have a Canadian RB starting but what would the alternative be if Oliveria was injured for multiple games. From a ratio point of view we could start an import there.

IDK if Smith might take on that role if we had an injury We have possible alternatives at returner. OTOH, I would think we'd have an import on the PR as depth at the very least.

Management, scouting and coaches need to have a succession / contingency plan for key players.  Next to our QB, our game revolves around our run game.

I don't expect to have the next superstar as a replacement sitting on the PR, but I do expect someone better than a warm body.

[theaardvark]

Jake Thomas is not a "warm body".  He has been a stalwart competitor for years with this team, and plays the function of a rotational DT quite well.

The fact he has been pressed into starting duties and is handling those duties admirably is testament to his work ethic, drive and talent.  Is he a 100% of snaps starter in this league?  I don't think anyone thinks he is (Jake might, but he's biased).

But don't belittle his contribution to the team.  Or his commitment.  And do not dismiss him as easily replaceable.  While we may not *need* his passport for our ratio, he serves a very big role on the team.