Blue Bombers agree to terms with veteran defensive lineman Jake Ceresna

[Pete]

It might have been close talent level wise, but from a leadership and intangibles point of view it wasn't much of a decision and when you throw in O'Sheas track record with long time bomber vets it's not surprising at all especially when its a future hall of famer. (Bighill was one we did move on from, but that was influenced a lot by injury)
From an entertainment angle, Willie brings a lot.

[bunker]

There's always more going on under the hood especially when you look at complementary football and bring that up as an reason why the other unit didn't succeed.

I don't really love that because it creates excuses where there really aught not to be.

For example: Our defense, by design, gives up yards and so what was our average starting field position? We didn't generate very many defensive turnovers so our offense didn't get many chances at sudden change points. You can of course inverse these.

Both units need to be better. Dominate offense and dominate defenses can carry teams to championships. Neither unit was good enough last year and both deserved the cross over exit in the end.

Our average yard line to start offensive drives was 36.7. Ottawa was best at 39.6, Edmonton worst at 34.9. We were about league average. You could argue Vaval helped us in this stat, but it does not appear the D was leaving us in a huge whole.
Our turnovers were -11, second worst in the league. We forced 34 turnovers, tied for 5th. We committed 45, second worst in the league, primarily because we led the league in interceptions at 27.
To me, the D needs some tinkering, particularly in terms of getting pressure (we were last in sacks at 23), but the O was a bigger factor in our poor showing.

[Jesse]

There's always more going on under the hood especially when you look at complementary football and bring that up as an reason why the other unit didn't succeed.

I don't really love that because it creates excuses where there really aught not to be.

For example: Our defense, by design, gives up yards and so what was our average starting field position? We didn't generate very many defensive turnovers so our offense didn't get many chances at sudden change points. You can of course inverse these.

Both units need to be better. Dominate offense and dominate defenses can carry teams to championships. Neither unit was good enough last year and both deserved the cross over exit in the end.

If we give up yards by design, why were we 3rd in yards allowed?

We had the lowest TD% allowed in the league.

We had the highest percentage of opponent 2&outs.

The average opponent field percentage was 4th in the league, but that was only one yard off of Calgary's, (36 vs 35 yard line).

[Sir Blue and Gold]

If we give up yards by design, why were we 3rd in yards allowed?

We had the lowest TD% allowed in the league.

We had the highest percentage of opponent 2&outs.

The average opponent field percentage was 4th in the league, but that was only one yard off of Calgary's, (36 vs 35 yard line).

Because games aren't won by averages over the course of the season and it largely doesn't matter how things average out. The question is, does the unit win?

Annihilating Montreal's fourth string QB a day before their bye and getting trucked in the East Final averages out on paper to fairly respectable stat lines over the course of two games. 

Are you claiming that that's a win? I'm not. If the unit was great last year we'd have done better than losing in the East Semi, no?  You do not win anything for being good "on paper" that I'm aware.