Tim White

[Jesse]

In context I disagree. We needed to maintain control of the ball and TOP. It was a high risk play that wasn't needed in that situation.

I understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.

[Blue In BC]

I understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.

If that was the last series of the 1st half then yes. In the last few minutes of the game while nursing a very small lead then no.

I put that in the context that we've struggled stopping opponents in those situations from scoring. Succeeding with a deep shot is a bonus and a play to win type of strategy. I would have preferred playing to not lose in this particular situation.

Again, considering we had allowed 2 100+ yard drives and allowed Fajardo completing passes at will, this was a very high risk.

We've seen this type of play in other games at other times where it made more sense. Part of the question is whether this was the called play or a Collaros decision based on his read of the defence?

I tend to think this was a called play. Reality suggests we should have had a bunch of quick short pass routes to allow players like Demski or White to shed a tackle for 5 or 6 yards.

[Pigskin]

So I'm not sure Zach called an audible on two separate occasions where we were second and 5 and he threw a bomb, of which both were incomplete?   The last one was when we had the ball with under 5 minutes to go and were in the lead.   We gave the ball right back to the Elks who then had great field position and scored with less than a minute on the clock.  Why go long on that play when we needed to get first downs and better field position while taking time off the clock.   In years past we would close these games out with ball control and Brady chewing up yards and the clock.  If that was the play called I'd question our OC and if not that's on Zach

I agree. I also thought ball control was more important. After his fumble BO20 was running angry. He ended up with a 6 yard average, and was picking up good yardage receiving. 19 touches in a game for BO20 is not enough.   

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.

If Fajardo was the Bombers QB in that situation good chance they win the game, we've seen it countless times, in hurry up mode Fajardo is very good, he knows where he's throwing before he snaps the ball, much like Trevor Harris. The key is to throw quick passes that are hard to defend against, Zach gambled on a long bomb with poor odds of success and lost the game.

[DM83]

It's the same as the last two years. No protection. No time to throw anywhere but short.  Who will we beat

[Blueforlife]

I understand what you're saying, but you play small ball until you get the look you need to take the deep shot. If Zach read that the defence was playing up to take away the "ball control" play, but they left the deep shot open, that's the shot you take.

I'm slightly more on your side on this one

you take what the D gives and if you get man you take a shot

I also would have preferred to nickel and dime but spare change isn't always available so you gotta play the big slots

at that point in the ball game one big shot and we likely win, our big shot failed, dems the breaks

it's a really fine line, doesn't mean the short shots would have worked either, easy to say after, if we would have taken smaller shots and not get the 1st, the narrative would be been should have passed for longer LOL

[Jesse]

I agree. I also thought ball control was more important. After his fumble BO20 was running angry. He ended up with a 6 yard average, and was picking up good yardage receiving. 19 touches in a game for BO20 is not enough.   

Even in his busiest seasons, Brady has only averaged around 16-17 touches a game. I think you're overestimating how much RBs are used in the CFL.

[Tecno]

Even in his busiest seasons, Brady has only averaged around 16-17 touches a game. I think you're overestimating how much RBs are used in the CFL.

The old adage in the AH33 years is "when he gets 20 touches, Bombers win".  That's what he's referring to.

In this case 19 is close enough.  It was one of Brady's nights, except for that fumble that may have cost the game (just like the ESF).  Glad to see he started putting in an effort right after that, though.  Shades of AH -- where the best thing you could hope for was a 1Q fumble so he got mad the rest of the game.

Gotta work on ball security though.  The ball IS the cup.

[Tecno]

If that was the last series of the 1st half then yes. In the last few minutes of the game while nursing a very small lead then no.

Except the D is thinking that exact thing, and that's why we got the 1-on-1 we wanted!  The final drive you can't take that shot because that's when the D blanket covers everything mid/deep.

You have it backwards.

Besides, do you really think the odds of Brady getting 5 with a stuffed box, or a short curl/slant to a NAT is any better than the iso shot we desperately wanted??  I don't.  I don't have faith in any aspect of our game.  Nothing is 80% for us.  Every decent pickup is a struggle.  So if every pass is a 25% affair, why not get 30Y for your troubles?

We've seen this type of play in other games at other times where it made more sense. Part of the question is whether this was the called play or a Collaros decision based on his read of the defence?

Buck & Condell's schemes for Zach are they always give him a variety of options.  We never do that 3rd & 3 "only 1-2 options for the QB, everything else is clearing/blocking/decoy" like MTL did in the '23 GC.  Zach always gets 3-6(!) options and he picks the best one.  I think he made the right call, and I think he'll do it again.

Now ask yourself, if Zach threw it to Philpot The Greater or Mital, is it a completion?  Yes it is.  The problem wasn't Condell, or Zach.  It was Nield.  He's just not good enough, yet we throw to him like he is?  Not saying he can't improve (as Mital has), but right now he's not winning any 50/50 balls.

[Tecno]

In context I disagree. We needed to maintain control of the ball and TOP.

Wouldn't have helped at all unless we decided we were in 3 down territory.  And with that much time on the clock MOS would never think that way.  Therefore we weren't going to have a long drive by trying to dictate what we were taking -- we HAD to take what they were giving us.  And we HAD to do unexpected things.

Would you be happier losing throwing for 2 when we need 5?  I wouldn't -- and people have bemoaned the 2/5 thing so much in the past.  BE BOLD.  We were probably going to lose no matter what anyhow.  We all knew it.  We just had hope, that was it.  But we knew, like in 2014, it was going to take a miracle from the gootball gods to allow us to win.

[Blueforlife]

I would give Brady more balls closer to 20

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I would give Brady more balls closer to 20

It's actually getting harder and harder to do that because you can scheme the a and b gap if you want to, and most teams do.

20 touches for Brady would mean a lot of second and seven.

[dd]

we got big body receivers in Nield and Daniels, get the ball into their hands and let them run over the puny Db's. Running Brady up the middle is ok to throw the defense off, but it can't be our focal point if we want to stay on the field

[DM83]

Wow beating a dead horse. CFL and Bombers rely on other teams cuts.  The gamble is they think maybe the guy was used wrong.  But in reality, white can't go get the long ones like he did in Hamilton. The Nield guy is a fourth option. Face it. If he has to play vs an American DB he doesn't have the speed. Pokey, injured?  And the tall guy? A never was.

All those guys might be 4 or 5 receivers. But see what we don't have. Edmonton killed us. Yeah the score was close, a testament to the coaches and players want to win.

We don't have the horses.

[Blueforlife]

It's actually getting harder and harder to do that because you can scheme the a and b gap if you want to, and most teams do.

20 touches for Brady would mean a lot of second and seven.

Second and 4 to 6 imo but yes though to get 20 agree but I would include screen passes in that 20 if they stopping the run

I believe the success of our run game will dictate our winning % and help provide much balance to a decent air attack

Come fall run the rock often, up the gut, great way to keep the O on the field