Winnipeg @ Edmonton Pre-game

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Brady didn't get the rock, because Zach decided to change the play calls all game. I would venture to guess many plays were to go to Brady, but Zach decided f...it...I am doing things my way off what I see, and that is why our offence looked so different.....It was adlibbed by Zach vs. called by Condell.....

Yah Zach was calling his own shots often and going deep is his favourite number.  It worked for this game but we've seen many times when the DB's are expecting Zach to throw deep the results have been mixed with too many interceptions. I guess he should play how he wants in the final few games and we'll see where it takes them, focusing on Singer likely won't work that well again.

[Tecno]

I think by design to test Calgary's weak D and they did have changes on the back end, they were stacking the box and Zach go his man coverage down field and took what they were giving him.  We obviously also game planned this

Zach said on the ob post game that the whole game was basically rpo or Brady fakes.

I really didn't notice Zach sending Brady out like dru did so much. Good. Sending Brady out is stupid.

So Brady is still integral even if we don't give it to him.

[Blueforlife]

Zach said on the ob post game that the whole game was basically rpo or Brady fakes.

I really didn't notice Zach sending Brady out like dru did so much. Good. Sending Brady out is stupid.

So Brady is still integral even if we don't give it to him.

Sending Brady out is one of the worst plays I have seen, mostly because of the frequency they did it earlier in the season.  Were you able to steal and burn those pages?

[Blueforlife]

We know Brady is better and that's not the point. There are several issues including the fact he is nursing an injury and not practising.

From a game plan point of view, you can't do the same thing all the time and not expect the opponent to take it away from the offence.

Peterson is probably a better RB than MCI but doesn't play ST's.

If Brady gets knocked out of a game I suspect we'll have zero run game. That's the point and why we need Peterson on the roster.

Last year in game 1 Brady was knocked out of the game after 3 plays. Peterson was on the roster and rushed for 130 yards.

I don't doubt Peterson would be decent.  Just not worth the roster spot.  MCI would be a reasonable fill in but would be limited to shorter gains but he and Daniels could screen.

[Blue In BC]

I don't doubt Peterson would be decent.  Just not worth the roster spot.  MCI would be a reasonable fill in but would be limited to shorter gains but he and Daniels could screen.

MCI has 8 carries in 3 seasons for 81 yards in total. He has 4 receptions for 32 yard in that time.

[Blueforlife]

MCI has 8 carries in 3 seasons for 81 yards in total. He has 4 receptions for 32 yard in that time.

And he is on the roster because he can block and plays teams (12 tackles).  Like most FBs isn't used much but in a pinch would do ok.

Peterson would take someone off the AR that is more important than an insurance policy at RB.

[Blue In BC]

And he is on the roster because he can block and plays teams (12 tackles).  Like most FBs isn't used much but in a pinch would do ok.

Peterson would take someone off the AR that is more important than an insurance policy at RB.

We'll see how that goes if Brady is unable to finish any game. You're argument is that an ST players value that can't really play RB is more valuable than a RB that can't play ST.  At the moment that is a choice between Peterson and Bouliane who is only on the roster due to others being injured.  He's not a critical ST player.

As I've said many other teams have that 2nd RB. Those include the top teams and we're hovering near extinction.

Our RB can't even practice and has been less productive as a result.  Your risk analysis is skewed with your instance that NOBODY spells Brady for any reason.  You argue that MCI or Daniels could be used for screens but neither of those choices are being used.

I'd settle to have MCI take a few reps to create an alternate look for defences. Throw a screen to Daniels a couple of times.  Your the one that suggested they'd be adequate replacements.

[Blueforlife]

We'll see how that goes if Brady is unable to finish any game. You're argument is that an ST players value that can't really play RB is more valuable than a RB that can't play ST.  At the moment that is a choice between Peterson and Bouliane who is only on the roster due to others being injured.  He's not a critical ST player.

As I've said many other teams have that 2nd RB. Those include the top teams and we're hovering near extinction.

Our RB can't even practice and has been less productive as a result.  Your risk analysis is skewed with your instance that NOBODY spells Brady for any reason.  You argue that MCI or Daniels could be used for screens but neither of those choices are being used.

I'd settle to have MCI take a few reps to create an alternate look for defences. Throw a screen to Daniels a couple of times.  Your the one that suggested they'd be adequate replacements.

The circular argument of fake news.  I am ok with Brady being spelled a bit by MCI. Bouliane made a play on teams last week I think and yes I take him over Peterson as he actually sees the field.  Other teams have two backs yes, but they don't have the king.  We will see who is on the roster this week but I doubt Peterson will be as the Bomber brass put a higher priority on a depth ST guy, which I agree.  ST is a third of the game and get more important in the playoffs and in the cold.

The only risk is if Brady goes down early, which we hope doesn't happen.