Matt Nichols should start next week?

After watching the game today, the Edmonton offense came to life when Nichols came in. He looked pretty good in a previous outing too, before getting injured.

So with Edmonton potentially playing a do or die game next week for a playoff spot, do you start him? I would.

I wouldnt, but I hope they do, for Ham sake.

Tough call ... no matter who we put on the field, you have a challenge in front of you!

If we sit Glenn and go with Tate ... not sure that's a "downgrade".
If we rotate like we did this weekend ... well, all three QBs had throwing touchdowns in the first half.
Even when we have fielded Mitchell, he has shown promise .. but other than a little bit of relief, I highly doubt he will be playing much.

If I'm Edmonton ... I am going to put whomever shows the most promise during practice during the week and try to shoot the lights out! Calgary is always "up" for a game with Edmonton. Even if some don't think this game means anything, we have two QBs that are "fighting" to play (competition is good :smiley: ) and anytime we can eliminate Edmonton from the playoffs, we'd LOVE to! :wink: :smiley: :wink: :rockin:

:cowboy:

Not to take anything away from Nichols as he did come in and spark the ESKS but on his first play to Als tripped over each other coming straight up the middle untouched giving Nichols time to roll out and make that 95 yard TD. He also threw and interception which led to the eventual game winning TD for Montreal. On the last drive he did do a great job of getting up the filed in the Als prevent defense leading to the TD pass to stamps which was a 50-50 shot as he threw it up to stamps in double coverage and he came down with it.
Teams are onto Joseph and the simplified offense that has been put in leading to the ESKS last two loses. I would be more concerned as to the status of LT Orrin Thompson who gave way to starting rookie O'Donell at RT moving Tyler to LT as Joseph was under contant pressure all day and the run game was non excitant with Messam. Messam has not found a groove since returning to the CFL from an injury. Bigger concern would also be if Charles will be able to play and if not make the decision to go with Boyd over Messam.
The ESKS came into the season without a #1 QB and they are finishing without one.
Joseph will start but it may be a shorter leash if there is a slow start.

Nothing wrong with starting but if Joseph is stinking out the place, give him the hook before the game is out of hand.

Kerry Joseph is not going to win the Grey Cup as your starting QB. Now it's likelye that neither will Matt Nichols. However, if he's your QB of the future, why on earth wouldn't you start him? Didn't you trade away a future HOFer because you're high on him? I think Matt Nichols can play and gives Edmonton the best chance to win. This is a no brainer. He injected a bit of life into an anemic offense when given the chance.

perhaps the ESKS do not consider Nichols the QB of the future or he would have seen much more PT earlier in the season.

You could very well be correct. If that's the case though, that's on Tillman.

The guy has one good quarter coming off the bench and playing a prevent defense in a game the Eskimos don't win and suddenly he should start? Ok.

On the other hand. . . can he possibly be worse than Joseph or Jyles ?

Oh yes, he could. Joseph has shown that he can get the job done this year. Let's see how Nichols fares against a defense that isn't playing a soft prevent shell, laying 15 yards off the receivers, in a game where the responsibility for posting points is largely on his shoulders. The Eskimos were playing at Molson Stadium, where they never win, and the defense dominated Edmonton for three quarters until Reinebold decided to take his foot off the gas pedal in the fourth quarter.

Joseph's numbers in the last couple of games are what, 36% completion rate? Since that's not going to possibly get it done against Calgary, it really can't be much worse.

And Joseph should take 100% of the blame for the gong show that is Edmonton's offense? The coaching change and demotion, the instability at QB, the protection problems, the running back saga, receivers not making plays ... that's all on Joseph, right? Come now. If you believe in one guy, you give that guy a chance to bounce back even when he's struggling. Throwing a rookie QB into the fire because you figure it "can't get much worse" is a sure-fire way to mess with that rookie's confidence. Nichols is new to the league, and will be facing a tough, veteran Calgary defense. He won't have receivers wide open, because he won't be playing a prevent defense.

This is a playoff game for Edmonton. To me, you go with your most experienced QB, the one who gives you the best possible chance to win right now (forget upside and the future, think about the present). That's Kerry Joseph.

Well, actually, everyone can make and have made good arguments for going in either direction. Just that I don't think anyone is putting up a reasonable argument to start Jyles.

Whichever one starts should have a short leash.

You're not going to fix any of that stuff before the game. The only thing you can control is who plays at QB. It doesn't matter how many people are to blame when you can't do anything about it. You fix that mess in the off season.

Right now, you've got a guy who has looked awful in his last couple of starts and a guy who was moving the ball. Take your pick.

This is a playoff game for Edmonton. To me, you go with your most experienced QB, the one who gives you the best possible chance to win right now (forget upside and the future, think about the present). That's Kerry Joseph.
Alternately you go with the guy who gives the team confidence they can win. Is the team confident they can win with Joseph? I really don't think so.

Have seen a lot of one hit wonders over the years, guys that looked like the next Moon etc, guys that are now washing dishes, but this guy Nichols yesterday looks like he has potential for greatness

I said this same thing after watching AC with the Las Vegas Posse some years ago...just saying

Not saying you can fix it now, only pointing out that Joseph's poor showing recently is about more than just his own performance.

Right now, you've got a veteran QB with a Grey Cup ring, who's proven he can win this year, and a raw rookie who had success against a prevent defense in the fourth quarter of a game in which the Eskimos still lost, a quarter in which his receivers actually made plays. Take your pick.
Fixed for you.
Alternately you go with the guy who gives the team confidence they can win. Is the team confident they can win with Joseph? I really don't think so.
And you know this how? You're in the locker room, you can speak for the players? Joseph has had some pretty nice games this year in which he has produced yardage and TDs and the team has won. Nichols has won exactly 0 games as a starter this year. I can't speak for the players, but I know who I'd be more confident in at this point.

in all fairness, Nicholls did not face the same pressure from the Als D as Joseph.

Alls D did what they have done all season, do to prevent D and only rush the front 4. Joseph was not fortunate enough to face that situation. Who knows what he may have been able to accomplish if he had that scenario!

Looking at Edmonton's record, I'm not sure how Joseph has proven he can win unless we're comparing him to Joey Elliott.

Alternately you go with the guy who gives the team confidence they can win. Is the team confident they can win with Joseph? I really don't think so.
And you know this how? You're in the locker room, you can speak for the players? Joseph has had some pretty nice games this year in which he has produced yardage and TDs and the team has won. Nichols has won exactly 0 games as a starter this year. I can't speak for the players, but I know who I'd be more confident in at this point.
[/quote] How do you take "I don't think so" and then ask how I know it? The very definition of "think so" says that I don't know it, I think it. They're not the same thing. :roll:

[/quote]
How do you take "I don't think so" and then ask how I know it? The very definition of "think so" says that I don't know it, I think it. They're not the same thing. :roll:
[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing. :cowboy: :lol: