Should the Bombers use a fullback in future games?

I can think of 2 reasons why:

  1. This year's Bombers are "Buck or bust" (if he he gets injured, we're toast in the playoffs). Buck is getting sacked too much and a FB would protect our QB.
  2. The O-Line can't run block worth $h!t and a FB could improve Fred Reid's running avg., which is about 3 yards/carry, I think :thdn:

That being said, our FB is only 5'11 and 218 lbs (no Mike Sellers, that's for sure). I've never seen him play, so I don't know if he could make a difference. I think it's worth a try.

YOU?

I was wondering about Green as a FB. He has been doing well on coverage teams and if I recall he he had a good college career as a RB

James Green isn't even a fullback. They just call him that. He is a special teams player. As long as he is the only "FB" on our active roster, we won't be seeing one.

However, Michel-Pierre Pontbriand is a guy we recently signed to our PR and is a much more natural FB than either Green or McHenry were. He has soft hands, much better FB size than Green (he's 6-2 and between 225-230) and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was brought in for that reason.

I like the idea of bringing in extra blocking but I also do not like the idea of taking one of Watson or Poblah out of the game.. the Bombers are a team that does NOT need exceptional QB play to win because they are built on their defense (see the first two games of the season) so there's no need IMO to bring him in solely because we need to keep Buck healthy.. however.. our O-line is not good at all and could use the extra help.

I wouldn't mind seeing it.

Wasn't PL Labbe getting reps there in training Camp? With Muamba getting more playing time he could replace Labbe at LB.
But, yes it is time to start looking for some Oline help. these guys are just not geting it done.

NO. Mike Kelly we already fired you and your 1980's era offense.

The consequence of using a FB is taking out one of the receivers which would give Buck fewer options. If you use a NI in that spot that means sitting Poblah or Watson. Poblah had a great first complete game and shown great promise, Watson has been been great each game and the most durable and consistent receiver. So you give Buck maybe an extra second or 2 to throw with a FB with one fewer receiver as an option to throw to. The Oline has deficiencies, the solution should be to fix the line, not take away from an area that's a strong point on the team. Will a FB help the run game? Doubt it. If you're obviously running up the middle on almost every 2nd and short play and teams are stacking the box against you like the Riders did all day long, they are going to stuff you, FB or not. Adding a FB doesn't fix unimaginative, predictable playcalling. I wouldn't be opposed to giving Volny a couple touches per game and giving Freddie some time off. He's been running hard up the gut every run play and taking a licking and we still have 1/2 a season to go.

lol, worked pretty well for Edmonton yesterday with McCarty and Messam in the backfield, both guys can catch as well as block.

Radical? Sit Reid, play both Volney and either Green/Pontibriand and get TJH or Tim brown in their instead.

....I think it's time to give the fullback idea a try....I think the running game needs a shake-up...I like Reid but he was negated big time in Regina....Is it the poor blocking up front????Could be and if it is maybe a blocking type fullback is the better option right now...Volney looked solid in the little time i've seen him...I'd like to see him get a shot....The new kid Pontbriand, I don't see him as game- ready ....So if we don't want a repeat of the Labour Day bomb, i say we have to give the Riders a different look ...AND by the way...did McHenry take our play-book with him on his way to riderville :wink: It sure looked like they were reading our mail :lol: We have to be a little less conservative in the Banjo tilt...I hope you're reading this Lapo :lol:

So coach LaPo acknowledges on the coaches show that the run game is struggling because teams are stacking the box and running 7 guys up the middle. So why hasn't he been calling plays to take advantage of that and punish teams for that by going over the top?

I don't mind getting Volny in some more reps but its not as easy. Edmonton has McCarty and Messam along with pascal Fils, all NI's, and Daniel Porter on their roster at RB, plus Bertrand, another NI at FB. Even if they sit Porter they have 3 NI RBs and a NI FB. Let's say you sit reid and start volny? Who backs up Volny? The game day roster is 2 RBs - Reid and Volny, and one FB, Green. If you say swap Brown in for Reid then you don't have another RB on the active roster behind Volny . If you start Volny you can go with one more import starter, but if decide to start another receiver like TJG that means one of Watson or Poblah sits. As much as I would like to see TJH get back on the roster and return to first half 2010 form, i wouldn't do it at this point at the expense of either watson or poblah. So you can't just say start this guy and start that guy, you have to build a roster with some depth or options at each spot in case of injury. Now if you say start Volny and swap out Garrett in for reid, then you have Garrett who returned some kicks and was ok at it late last year and you have a backup at RB. Based on what's on the roster right now that seems to make the most sense. Hargreaves sprained an ankle so if he's not ready to go that might get pontbriand onto the roster and let them use a FB and see if that changes anything. James Green is not a natural FB but a good special teamer.

The Riders don't need McHenry to tell them what's coming. The guys in the booth on TSN pointed out that the blue have distinct tendencies. A lot of short slants, hooks, and curls for 6-7 yard gains, 2nd and 3-4 yards they are handing off to reid up the middle. Not exactly rocket science. There were problems with the on field quality of play but to win away on a labor day in front of a full stadium with mostly hostile fans coaching is important to overcome that and get that win - having a good game plan, making the right in game adjustments. He missed the challenge on that spot in the 2nd half that would've gotten them a 1st down. I know that its very hard to overturn a spot but if one ever was going to be overturned it was that one. I like coach lapo, don't get me wrong, but I think he still has room for improvement as well.

...I agree totally wolverine on the challenge that was passed on....Those are the little things that LaPo has to improve ...
Of course you know i was jesting about McHenry and our playbook...It wouldn't have mattered if he had been in the Bomber huddle relaying our calls...we just didn't play well..I hope that was our 'clunker' for the year

...The glaring fault with this team right now is getting decent field position...I don't know what it is or if we choose to go that way, but i don't remember many games when we have actually received the opening kick-off...We are always giving the other team the ball to start ...Palardy does not get the ball deep and ..bango...the opposition is starting on the 40...while we get buried on the 25...It's like we're spotting the other team 40 yards...I think we have to fool the roughies....Take the ball from the get-go...Insert Tim Brown and have him take one to the house...setting the tone for a rider beat-down...I like to think positive :lol: But really we have to get better field position for our 'sputtering' offence...Maybe that's the cure :roll: :roll:

For me the glaring fault is the fact our Blue lead the league in 2 and outs. A lot goes into play in the field position game. One is special teams - punting, coverage, returns. The other is moving the ball. Getting a couple of first downs before punting makes the other team start further back. And with the way our team plays in the first quarter, right now it doesn't matter if we get the ball first or not. Again this has been a season long issue that coaching hasn't successfully addressed. Is Tim Brown the answer? Is a new back running the ball going to revitalize things? Will adding a FB open things up for Reid? Dunno. TBD.

As I said in the other thread, please point out one instance when a challenge of a third down spot has been successful.

Let me ask you this Blue - please point out an instance of a 1-7 team fires their HC and OC, takes on a 7-1 team and beats them soundly on the scoreboard? Its never happened before but it didn't stop the riders from putting in the effort to make it happen. Just because its never been done doesn't mean you don't try.

Doesn't matter if it has been successful or not. If you feel you've been cheated on the spot you question it if you can. They had a challenge at their disposal. Not willing to risk a challenge is a defeatist attitude, especially when you're behind and you're trying to keep a drive alive and keep the team in the game. You're implying that it would've been a waste and wouldn't have worked. OK granted that challenge pretty much always fails but they are on 2nd or 3rd and inches, a QB or RB plows forward in the middle of the Oline, you've got Dline and LBs piling in, and you can't even see the ball on the camera angles. In this case though, the ball was clearly visible during the play on camera. Can you point out another game where there has been such a visual disparity on the screen between where the ball was and where the ball was spotted that has been challenged? That was a pretty big difference, a yard plus, not inches. Even Cuthbert/Suitor pointed it out that it was visually a big disparity, and suitor is usually quick to point the futility of such challenges. Would the call been overturned or upheld? Maybe it was the right call on the field, but then maybe it wasn't. But at least you have to try to give your team the chance and show you have some faith in them. You're right blue, historically challenging a spot doesn't get overturned. But someday one will be, it could've been on Sunday.

Did you ever think that maybe they didn’t feel the spot was wrong? From the replays I’ve watched, the ball did not get to the Riders 49 yard line which is what was required for a first down. Reid’s head got that far but not the ball.

Of course it has occurred to me. I didn't say they would have won the challenge. They showed different angles, one looked like it might not have crossed, another looked like he got the yardage. If Lapo didn't think that the ball crossed then he shouldn't challenge. If I was HC I would have challenged for the reasons outlined above, but that's probably why I'm not a coach. I'm OK with them not challenging. Your point was to suggest it wasn't worth challenging because those challenges aren't successful. Its this assertion that I was disputing. Just because no one else has had one overturned doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge if you feel like its was a wrong call.

…With regards to spots being challenged…To me it looked like Fred made that first down…Sometimes the refs. have given forward progress a generous position, other times the reverse…I thought it should have been challenged becasue the way that game was going you have to grab at any straw you can…Would it have been successful??? Well i guess we’ll never know now…Just because there has been a failure to reverse a call in the past does NOT mean there can’t be a first time :wink:

IMO his forward progress was short of the 1st down. From the replays, it looks like the ball never got to the 49.

After reviewing the game stats again, Durant completed just 13 passes the whole game, fortunately for him, 3 were TD's. The field position and Bomber penalties had as much to do with Rider success in this one than anything.

There's no doubt that Sask. got a lot of "homer" calls (no pass interference on Edwards, etc.), but watching the Bombers offense was painful. Without a decent running game, Montreal will shut down the Bombers like they did Edmonton.

Something must be done about our O-line and running game or we'll be 9-9 and losing the Eastern semi-final this November.
You read it here first; the Bombers are currently the most over-rated team in the league.

???? Field position, Bomber undisciplined penalties, continuous 2 and outs, poor special teams, Rider receivers being open for big plays, inability of Bomber d-line to penetrate....just to name a few more. C'mon, give the Riders their due.

…All of those faults listed, sounds like the riders season up till now…AND as far as riders receivers being open…we’ll see how many get open on Sunday :wink: