Ironically both Calgary & Saskatchewan would improve if they lost their starting QB's. As strange as that is, we can easily rest Collaros for another game or just half a game. Collaros is pretty durable. If Calgary gets in the WSF Collaros can rest the second half. The same goes true for Hamilton in the GC. LOL
It might be wise to fact-check Cup. The reason Collaros is even in Winnipeg is because he has never managed to complete a season. The 2 years he had 18 games on his resume he wasn't a starter. He has 104 CFL games in 8 seasons prior to this year, averaging 13 games/season. How is he durable? I said it before & I'll repeat it - the Bombers have a lousy record of finding QB talent. Willy (Riders), Nichols (Elks) & Collaros (Argos) were all brought to the CFL by other clubs. McGuire, like Dom Davis & Brian Bennett before him, are Bomber "finds". Not what I would call a great record. Only the Bombers & Riders have had their 1st team QB's healthy all year. Every other team has been juggling them. That has a lot to do with the success of their teams this year because if they those 2 teams had to dip into their QB "depth", they'd be in big trouble.
Let the haters wish an injury to Collaros, complain that we didn't develop him, complain that we've been too healthy, and just complain in general.
I'd be more concerned if they weren't complaining about us.
It's not a secret that both the Riders & TiCats gave up on him because of his injury issues. Whether or not there are other QB's missing games is not the point. In fact you illustrate my argument by saying that other QB's get injured. Yes they do. My point is that the Bombers insurance is another guy they scouted who is not very good IMO. A team is only as good as its weakest link. And the Bombers have a big one in McGuire. It's not like the Bombers sat Lawler, Adams, Demski, Wolitarsky etc. Fifteen possessions, 4 INT's, 6 two & outs. B-A-D.
Yes he didn’t have a good game in his first start. Many QB’s don’t. See Dinwiddie, Ryan. Will he improve and become a solid QB? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. Judging someone’s entire career based on their first game is not wise. I have also seen QB’s look outstanding in their first game, only to suck thereafter.
Some credit is also due to the Als defence and the second best pass rush in the league. I said before the game I was happy that Zach would not have to unnecessarily face their pass rush again. Better to expose him to Calgary’s weaker pass rush next week.
I don't wish Collaros any ill, Blue. I think the argument that Jefferson is in the conversation with MOP with Collaros has been answered. What's lost in the shuffle sometimes is no matter how good a defence is, it's going to break down if the offence doesn't move the ball or turns it over & leaves them on the field too long & in bad spots. That was perfectly illustrated in this game. Mtl had the ball for over 39 minutes. The only "drives", if you could call them that was the opening one after the turnover where all that was required of McGuire was to hand off the ball. Cue into the Als up 24-7 & they fall asleep on 2 plays on 2 consecutive long balls where all you had to do was lay the ball up to 2 wide open receivers. Saying McGuire was not good is hardly "hating" on the Bombers.
I agree that McGuire was bad, but it was one game, his first CFL start, against a tough defense, on the road, and the Bombers having nothing to play for. I wouldn't write him or anyone off after one game.
Add Dinwiddie to the Bennett, Davis, McGuire list. Lots of examples of 1st games this year.
Rourke 10/18 55.6% completion vs Sk
Maier 16/29 55.1 % completion vs those same Als
Cornelius 19/33 57.6% completion vs the powerhouse Bomber D
Harker 10/13 76.9% completion in relief vs the power house Bomber D.
McGuire 13/33 39.4% completion vs Als.
It's not like the other backups thrown into starting roles in the West had feeble competition. Which of the above 4 does NOT belong in that group? I would have more faith in Mr McGuire if the Bombers actually had a recent history of bringing in capable backups. I'll give credit where it's due with Streveler who was a big part of the Winnipeg offence as a run option in conjunction with Harris - a 2 pronged running threat. The CFL's version of Tim Tebow. And please don't compare him to Jackson. Streveler's touches in the CFL were 35% rushes to 65% passing which means he rushed the ball once every 3 downs. He had as many INT's as TD's. Tebow actually has a career NFL 17 TD's to 9 INT's in the BIGS. Streveler should be flattered to be compared to Tebow. Very unlikely to ever be a starter in the NFL IMO.
Well, I brought everyone out of Winnipeg today so I will say this & I'm done. MY POINT IS that the Bombers have an achilles heel in McGuire. It is a good thing that Collaros has been healthy &, write this down, I hope that he stays healthy. But the drop down from Collaros to McGuire is precipitous IMO. None of the other QB's I mentioned in the West with their 1st starts were awful. They looked like backups but they played fairly well against good competition. McGuire, with all his receiver weapons, on the best club in the league played awful. If you want to dispute this & have faith that you can get the job done without Collaros in the playoffs because, well, your D will bail you out - fine. Have at it. Personally I think one of the 1st things the Bombers have to do next year is find a better backup. Unlike McGuire, Rourke, Maier & Cornelius didn't have the benefit of being with their clubs last year. McGuire is in his 2nd year with the club, a big advantage - or so you would hope.
LOL, I'm not a Bombers fan, I'm an Alouettes fan. Again, I agree that McGuire was bad, and that the Bombers need Collaros to stay healthy if they want to repeat. I'm just saying that there were many reasons for his poor performance yesterday and it's premature to put all of it on him. The Als have a pretty good defense. The other team gets paid to play too, you know.
What you don’t mention is that the other QB’s you refer to were in meaningful games and their team dressed as many starters as were available. This was a team of second stringers, absent the best OL in the league, Stanley Bryant, to protect McGuire’s blindside. It also rained steadily. Don’t know the weather in the other games you mention, but I doubt it rained in all of them. McGuire also threw 3 of his 4 IT’s in garbage time. As another poster pointed out, no one is saying that McGuire played well. I do think it is premature, however, to write him off for good after one game against a solid defence that was trying very hard and had something to play for.
I also have no idea why you keep going to this Streveler/Tebow comparison which has nothing to do with McGuire or this thread.
OK, Jon one last thing. When you're losing the game what is garbage time? Garbage time I define by the winning team being so far ahead they play safe & off the receivers, kind of what happened on the 2nd TD. Losing by 24-15 is that garbage time with 4:36 on the clock when the 3 INT's started - is that garbage time for the Bombers? Wow. I didn't expect the Bombers to mail it in. Game was still winnable. Except with McGuire - it wasn't.
You are right. There is no point in continuing. You cherry pick one point you believe you can counter and ignore my other points about McGuire playing on a team not at full strength and playing in poor weather. You, like a few others, are grasping at any straws you can to run down the Bombers. That would work in many years but not this year. You just can’t build any kind of a reasonable realistic case against them or in favour of any other team. Yes I know they haven’t won yet and they could lose, but that is just a low probability. What’s the point?
Weren't both teams playing in poor weather? A Bomber team not at full strength lost? Well they beat a lot of teams this season not at full strength. Have you been following the injury reports? You may find an article by Bomber writer John Hodge on 3DownNation interesting. On Oct 27 he checked out 11 teams who secured 1st place with a month to play in the season. These 11 were all in the 19 years from 2001. This year's Bombers make 12 teams in 20 years. So this kind of domination is hardly unknown - it's happened 60% of the time in 2 decades. Of those 11 teams prior to this year, only 5 won the Cup. Losers included the 14-4 Bombers in 2001 who won not 9 straight, but 12. The 2016 Stamps were 15-2-1, the greatest point total in CFL history behind the 16-2 Esks who, by the way, didn't make it to the CUP. So what is the probability based upon this sample of front runners this century? Simple math - 5 wins in 11 tries - 45%. In other words, assuming the Bombers make it to the CUP it's basically a toss up. That's a realistic case based upon actual results, Jon. I'm only stating what is part of the record. I appreciate your opinions but based upon what? I'm a bit surprised that, as a Bomber fan, you forget that a team that beat you twice last year, handily at IGF & lost only 3 games of 18 nevertheless got beaten by an 11-7 Bomber club. And yet "that won't work" this year? Really, why not? When it happens so often.