Younger's defense

[Blueforlife]

Every year that Younger has had this defense under his control it's been worse than the prior year. Every year.

The fact that you must admit we've finally got a problem is positive proof that it's a downright disaster.

If you knew where to look you'd see that the exact problems we have this year are bigger more obvious ones from last year and they started the year before that down the stretch and into the Grey Cup loss.

Don't think it gets any more proof positive than that, PJ.

Its not a disasater, that's your opinion fueled by your dislike of our defensive brain trust and schemes.

My position on this club remains the same, there is no change in my view point, been saying the same stuff all year. 

You are ignoring the stats and won't admit that the defence was decent last year which is backed up by facts.

Your posts on here at times have the tone that you know more, know better than others, which is evident here.  I know where to look. I see ball club with good coaches and management with around average depth that is under performing. I see promise still.  I am more patient than you are.

I am willing to wait a few more games before I write the club off.

I enjoyed the ball game yesterday, regrettable result.  Weird but entertaining game. 

I didn't see major problems on D last year other than an under welming DL.

[Blue In BC]

The facts are the defence had good numbers last year in many categories.  The result are worse yes this year but the D wasn't as bad as your suggest last year.  The stats back that up.  I won't post them here, the CFL page and Google does that for me.  I have highlighted some of these facts previously.

I don't see a systematic problem with our schemes, you do, which are two polar opposite opinions.  Neither of us are likely right, truth usually lies at the middle of two strong positions.

Some including me, believe last year we had a offensive problem and D wasn't the issue.

To early to know this year what we are but early indications are that the D needs work but the offense should be ok (hope!).  I see some struggles on the OL and would like more runs called.

You and others simply paint me as a one dimensional ray of sunshine on here which isn't correct.  I have clearly stated my opinion on the club which has included detailed concerns in many areas.  Yes I have shown my support for the club for a long time but I provide a variety of positions all the time.

I talk about of D as a strength as it has been for almost a decade.  We had an incredible run which I have admitted is in decline as of late.  The success the had at its peak makes even an average D look bad.  The stats, records, scores all support that view point.  I see our D under Hall as some of the best I have ever seen.  I believe Younger has continued with good performing d for a couple of seasons with a challenging one thus far this year.

I have a different posting style than you, seeing, considering or even listening to another person's viewpoint will be forever a problem of yours.

My post was about you overstating the negative about the schemes, Younger and the performance of the D going back a few years.  I am not sunshine and roses about the current state of the club.  We are in a hole but I still have hope but see an uphill challenge.  I have repeatedly provided the areas of concern for the club.

Hope isn't a popular opinion right now but doesn't make it invalid.  I was much less popular on here pre mini dynasty and I'll stay the course just like I did back then.  Until the current regime changes or we tank, this organization has my trust.  Not really confident but I haven't given up on them (yet).

You don't understand the concept of systemic issues. Having a good result across a season is a deceptive stat. It's been point out that we may have good results against bad teams but have constantly poor results against good teams within our own division.

The last drive by the Elks was something we've seen before. We had a slight lead and can't force the opponent off the field. They march downfield at will against essentially a prevent defence soft coverage.

We could list specific examples last year and during JY's tenure. You are unwilling to accept what you are seeing in front of you.

Decent gave us a 4th place finish. Dominant defences prevent long drives against better than average teams.  Beating Ottawa and the bottom 3 teams but losing to the top teams is what happened. You may want to look at the 2025 schedule, points and yardage analysis. Or you could re-watch the games at least once after the original airing as many of us do each season.

An underwhelming DL as you pointed out, gave good QB's time to find open receivers and / or escape the pocket etc. That's exactly the same as yesterday. Not enough pressure throughout the game and particularly with the game on the line.

[Blueforlife]

You don't understand the concept of systemic issues. Having a good result across a season is a deceptive stat. It's been point out that we may have good results against bad teams but have constantly poor results against good teams within our own division.

The last drive by the Elks was something we've seen before. We had a slight lead and can't force the opponent off the field. They march downfield at will against essentially a prevent defence soft coverage.

We could list specific examples last year and during JY's tenure. You are unwilling to accept what you are seeing in front of you.

Non factual opinion without merit"You don't understand the concept of systemic issues" ,"You are unwilling to accept what you are seeing in front of you."


The stats on Youngers D last year shown it was a good defense as whole.  We have already discussed this at great lengths and I provided my details and counter arguments.  We are discussing the same thing over and over and the same result will come, we don't agree.  We can leave it there.  I look at things with a wider lense than you do.  We have previously covered the topics you mention.  Not rehashing it.

I call it like I see it, I don't run with the herd.

I have defended Younger and his schemes.  The current club is a story that continues to unfold.

[Blue In BC]

Non factual opinion without merit"You don't understand the concept of systemic issues" ,"You are unwilling to accept what you are seeing in front of you."


The stats on Youngers D last year shown it was a good defense as whole.  We have already discussed this at great lengths and I provided my details and counter arguments.  We are discussing the same thing over and over and the same result will come, we don't agree.  We can leave it there.  I look at things with a wider lense than you do.  We have previously covered the topics you mention.  Not rehashing it.

I call it like I see it, I don't run with the herd.

There you go again, saying good as a whole which I suggested was partially true. It's like Jeckel and Hyde. good one week against a bad team and then bad against a good team might create the illusion of good as a whole. That's just math.

If 1 team only scores 10 point and 1 other teams scores 30 point, it averages 20 points per game. That's a nice average but still a problem when it's a pattern against good teams. Whether that's points, yardage or TOP. It's all context.

It's not about 2026 so far which we've said. We saw discussions all of last year about weak DL, lack of pressure and soft coverage. You're just coming up with a Trumpian " alternative facts "

[Blueforlife]

There you go again, saying good as a whole which I suggested was partially true. It's like Jeckel and Hyde. good one week against a bad team and then bad against a good team might create the illusion of good as a whole. That's just math.

If 1 team only scores 10 point and 1 other teams scores 30 point, it averages 20 points per game. That's a nice average but still a problem when it's a pattern against good teams. Whether that's points, yardage or TOP. It's all context.

It's not about 2026 so far which we've said. We saw discussions all of last year about weak DL, lack of pressure and soft coverage. You're just coming up with a Trumpian " alternative facts "

I haven't brought up any alternative facts

Please don't take personal shots (Trump)

Yes the D was good a whole last year, supported  by many statistical categories

Consistency of this club has been an issue yes over the last few seasons.

I don't see value or merit in continuing this debate.  We don't agree, have different takes and views.

[dd]

it is absolutely pointless arguing with him, You're right by the way, but he only sees the positive/good, nothing in his world is bad or needs changing, is all good , all the time.

[Blueforlife]

it is absolutely pointless arguing with him, You're right by the way, but he only sees the positive/good, nothing in his world is bad or needs changing, is all good , all the time.

Non factual opinion with no value to a football discussion

I have posted what think is right and wrong with the club, offered that I think needed to change for coaching and players

I have detailed and discussed the things the club should change routinely over the years

Painting someone else as one colour the way you have is as easy out to claiming you are right

We all have a variety of opinions to post and that's the value of this place.  Debate and counting each other is a good way to understand all sides of a story.  There is nobody that is right or wrong all the time.  Just our own opinions with a lot of personal bias.

There are many like me that tend to be more positive, lots of neutral and some that are more negative.  That balance makes a healthy online community and improves the balance of the content and convos

Full disclosure I'm a fairly negative person in general but have been positive on the last decade of Bomber ball as I really believe in this clubs overall direction, leadership, culture etc.

That belief if being tested but I still have hope.

[TBURGESS]

The D isn't as bad as some folks are making it out to be. In last night's game, they eliminated Rankin in the second half. They kept the Elks to 3 total points in 3 trips inside the 10 including forcing a fumble. Jefferson had his best game in the last couple of years. They also kept the Elks to 1 TD drive in the second half to give us a chance to win.

Meanwhile, the offence and special teams fumbled the ball 6 times, missed 2 FG's, Collaros took a month's worth of hits & the cobbled-together O-line stunk the joint out.

[Blueforlife]

The D isn't as bad as some folks are making it out to be. In last night's game, they eliminated Rankin in the second half. They kept the Elks to 3 total points in 3 trips inside the 10 including forcing a fumble. Jefferson had his best game in the last couple of years. They also kept the Elks to 1 TD drive in the second half to give us a chance to win.

Meanwhile, the offence and special teams fumbled the ball 6 times, missed 2 FG's, Collaros took a month's worth of hits & the cobbled-together O-line stunk the joint out.

A factual and on point summary imo

Thanks for the post, well said

Jefferson was absolutely incredible.  Seen him get home on a 3 man front.  He was hungry.  Amazing to see him play at that level at his age.

The hits on Zach were and are my biggest worry.  That can't continue.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The D isn't as bad as some folks are making it out to be. In last night's game, they eliminated Rankin in the second half. They kept the Elks to 3 total points in 3 trips inside the 10 including forcing a fumble. Jefferson had his best game in the last couple of years. They also kept the Elks to 1 TD drive in the second half to give us a chance to win.

Meanwhile, the offence and special teams fumbled the ball 6 times, missed 2 FG's, Collaros took a month's worth of hits & the cobbled-together O-line stunk the joint out.

The bar is very low if we give up over 100 on the ground to Rankin, 2 100 yard scoring drives and an outright faceplant with three minutes left and we're calling that 'not bad'.

You're right that it wasn't a good day for the offense or Castillo but the defense wasn't good enough to win all by themselves too.

[Pete]

you only have to compare Elks defensive approach in the last drive to ours. The Elks were very aggressive in blitzing and coverage, putting pressure on our offense while we tried to just keep everyone everyone in front of us.

[TBURGESS]

The bar is very low if we give up over 100 on the ground to Rankin, 2 100 yard scoring drives and an outright faceplant with three minutes left and we're calling that 'not bad'.

You're right that it wasn't a good day for the offense or Castillo but the defense wasn't good enough to win all by themselves too.

We gave up more than 90 of those yards in the first half, which is terrible, but at least we fixed the problem at halftime.

No part of the game should be expected to be good enough to win it all by themselves. 

[Blue In BC]

it is absolutely pointless arguing with him, You're right by the way, but he only sees the positive/good, nothing in his world is bad or needs changing, is all good , all the time.

Yeah, he's from another planet.

Compared to the Riders: Bombers were -13 points for and + 15 points against
Compared to the Als: Bombers were +14 on offence and - 6 points against.

Those " facts " suggest the Bombers were equal to the Riders and the Als but we know they were not. Not in games won or overall performance during the season. The other facts are that we lost more games and we lost the playoff game when they advanced to the Grey Cup.

Points against are a fact but the context is important.

In the game against the Elks: the Elks had a 2nd 100+ yard drive and turned over the ball on downs at the 1 yard line. Would someone argue that was good defence because they didn't score? That's the bend but don't break hope the opponent will make a mistake.

At times, we've made a defensive play by forcing an error. While that's good, letting them march 70 - 100 yards before they or we cause an error is the context. The Elks drive I mentioned we could argue that we rushed Fajardo into an early throw. OTOH if the receiver didn't bobble the ball it would have been a TD.

It's very fine line. Like I said, context.

One last points, we gave up 424 points in 2025.

Against the Elks we gave up 23 points. Based on 18 games at that rate =414 points which is slightly less last year.  So  low points scored doesn't dictate that the defence played well. Obviously we aren't going to give up exactly 23 points a game this year, but it points out the fallacy that we ranked well in points against in 2025 suggests we had a good defence.

[dd]

The 2025 stats were skewed because the offense turned the ball over so many times. But last night, they punted the ball and had Edmonton on their own 10 yard line and then their own 2.5 yard line, only to see them march the full length of the field for a TD. Good defense?? Hardly. We're up by 1 with the game on the line, think the defense will hold them and force them to punt, think again, they march down and score to win the game. This defense won't win us any games, they're soft in coverage and have a non existent pass rush, even with the addition of Ceresna.

[Blueforlife]

Yeah, he's from another planet.

Compared to the Riders: Bombers were -13 points for and + 15 points against
Compared to the Als: Bombers were +14 on offence and - 6 points against.

Those " facts " suggest the Bombers were equal to the Riders and the Als but we know they were not. Not in games won or overall performance during the season. The other facts are that we lost more games and we lost the playoff game when they advanced to the Grey Cup.

Points against are a fact but the context is important.

In the game against the Elks: the Elks had a 2nd 100+ yard drive and turned over the ball on downs at the 1 yard line. Would someone argue that was good defence because they didn't score? That's the bend but don't break hope the opponent will make a mistake.

At times, we've made a defensive play by forcing an error. While that's good, letting them march 70 - 100 yards before they or we cause an error is the context. The Elks drive I mentioned we could argue that we rushed Fajardo into an early throw. OTOH if the receiver didn't bobble the ball it would have been a TD.

It's very fine line. Like I said, context.

One last points, we gave up 424 points in 2025.

Against the Elks we gave up 23 points. Based on 18 games at that rate =414 points which is slightly less last year.  So  low points scored doesn't dictate that the defence played well. Obviously we aren't going to give up exactly 23 points a game this year, but it points out the fallacy that we ranked well in points against in 2025 suggests we had a good defence.

It's not a hard concept.

It's in the forum rules.

Keep the personal attacks out of your posts please.