Dropping 2 in a row is not common for the Bombers. And when the Bombers needed to play a good game after their loss to Hamilton, and after their bye week...they came up short! So the question of 'What's going on?' must be asked.
So What Happened?
It Wasn't The Defence
When we look at the stats, the Bombers actually held Edmonton to not a lot of passing yards.
There is enough blame to go around with the Bombers defence. They seemed non -existent in the first half. Even with Edmonton backed up, they were able to drive the field multiple times. Rankin tore them up in the first half. In total Rankin had 15 carries for 106 yards and 1 touchdown. Do not get me wrong. I did not love the defence. Even in the fourth quarter the Bombers were unable to stop the Elks from play, after play, after play. But that is not why the Bombers lost.
It Wasn't The Offence As A Whole
Collaros actually threw more touchdowns.
It Wasn't Turnovers
The Bombers had major issues with ball security...but that did not cost them the game, in my mind. More on that in a bit. Some are going to argue that when you fumble the ball 6 times, even if you recover it 3 times, that will cost you the game. Under normal situations I would probably agree! And I get it, my take on this is not likely going to be very popular, and it certainly will go against what most others who cover sports are saying. But, if I only say what everyone else is saying then I am not adding anything useful to the conversation. As brutal as the Bomber's ball security was, that was not why they lost the game. Face it, the Bombers were down 14-0 in the first quarter, and even after all of that, the Bombers were up in the 4th quarter.
The Real Reason
If you want to argue that turnovers cost the Bombers the game, you would have to be able to unequivocally argue that the Bombers win the game if they did not commit those turnovers. You can guess, speculate, or even assume that the Bombers win the game without those turnovers...but you simply cannot say for certain. It is kind of like when a review happens in the CFL; you have to have conclusive evidence. There is no conclusive evidence that if the Bombers did not turn the ball over that they win the game. Sorry, not sorry.
If that were truly the case, then the Bombers would have had no chance of winning the game. But that is not what happened. The Bombers did have a chance to win the game in the last minute. If I have not gotten controversial enough yet, let me continue. People always say, '1 play does not cost you the game in sports.' And about 98% of the time I agree. If the Bombers did not have a chance of coming back in the game I would have zero issue saying that turnovers cost them the game.
But then there is the other 2% of the time where a single play does cost you the games. These are the times where the game is in reach, and the final play to win the game is either the wrong play, does not work...or both. That was the case with the Bombers. They had a chance to win despite all the fumbles but then call a play with very little chance of succeeding. Right after they ran that final play of the game I said, "Why did they run that? That had zero chance of working."
I get the counter argument and it goes something like this, 'Well the Bombers would not be in that situation if they had not fumbled the ball as much.' My response? Prove it. That makes the assumption that if the Bombers had not fumbled the ball as much, then every other play in the game would have been the same play with the same result as that which did occur. That's a fallacy. Neither the Bombers, nor the Elks would have ran the exact same plays with the exact same outcomes had the Bombers fumbled 1 less times, or 2 less times, or 3 less times...etc.
Or at very least, we cannot be certain that they would have run the exact same plays with the exact same outcomes...and that is the problem with the counterargument to what I am saying. There are too many variables, and it does not hold up to the scientific method to prove what others are arguing.
Before I get to my final thoughts, you can watch all the highlight and lowlights here:
Final Thoughts
Maybe you do not like my argument. I do not really care. It is not that I am smarter than you, and you very likely did way better than I did in science. But right now, we are talking about what we can prove, and here it is. We can prove that despite all the Bombers' turnovers, they had an opportunity to win the game. With that opportunity they called a play that did not succeeded and did not look like it had a chance to succeed. The Bombers lost the game, on the last play of the game.
So break it down however you want to. Say whatever you may, and believe whatever you must...but the Bombers lost the game because of the last play of the game.
Let me know in the comments section wherever you are reading this. Catch all my articles here.