Jock
Winnipeg
The Bombers have a number of contenders for this award this week.
As previously mentioned Janario
n Grant could be a recipient for his bobbled punt return which led to a BC touchdown – or the next punt return that he bobbled again before finding the handle.You could give the award to Marc Liegghio as he missed 2 of his point after attempts – one of them being returned by BC for 2 points. But Liegghio did go 3/3 on field goals.
Essentially, the Bombers winning took both of those players out the conversation for the jock.
Media
<p>*Rourke-ManiaDo not get me wrong, Rourke is a good quarterback, but is he great? I am yet to be convinced as most of his wins this year have come against not great teams, and when he did face Winnipeg playing their starters they made him look average. He probably will be great, but that is an assumption not a fact.
Even if you do not like the tit
le of the article you should check and see who Rourke actually did beat.I know, some are going to point to the 300 yard game again…but he was 54.1%! Zach Collaros would have easily broke 300 yards as well if Winnipeg decided not to play the run game as much.
Winnipeg heavily relied on the run game throwing the ball only 22 times and running the ball 31 times. While Zach Collaros did not look fabulous he did go 14/20 (70%) compared to Rourke who went only 20/37 (54.1%). Yes, Rourke threw for 300 yards and Zach only for 178 but that was a result of play calling – the Bombers went with the run game.
What matters most, yards or com
pletion percentage, touchdown to interception ratio? The only category that Rourke had over Collaros was yards.However, I will give Rourke-Mania a pass this week.
*The final play for BC
The jock should go to the play
calling, but it will go to an individual player on this play.BC has a terrible time getting the second last play off, and now they are down by 8 with 6 seconds remaining – essentially 1 play left – and what do they do? They throw a short pass and run some type of hook-and-ladder play!
Are you kidding me?!
Yes I understand that all the Bomber defenders are playing back so BC will get some yards. But do you really think you are going to outflank a whole Bombers’ defence? Every time that ball gets lateralled to another player the success rate of that play plummets.
There is only one corr
ect play call with 6 seconds left and down by 8…and BC had the weapons to pull it off. That play is a deep shot to the end zone. Rourke can make that thrown. BC has receivers that can make that catch – Hatcher, Burnham, Rhymes all good enough receivers to come down with it. If the ball is not caught then BC hopes for a pass interference penalty which would put the ball on the 1 yard line with one final play. A successful touchdown and BC lines up for a 2 point convert. That is how you extend the game.Nevertheless, BC decided as hook-and-latter play would be best even though their run game as abysmal all night.
If that were not bad enough, that play is essentially over the moment that BC Lions Sukh Chungh takes a cheap shot on Winnipeg’s Malik Clements. There are now 0s on the clock and even if BC somehow takes that ball to the house the touchdown will be called back. Rhymes was the player with the ball at that point and once the flags flew, he pretty much gave up on the play. He knew it, it was over!
For completely taking any sligh
t change your team had to pull out a win by taking a cheap shot on a defenseless player, Chungh, you get the jock!Make sure to re-live all the highlights!
Stay tuned for Grey Cup articles all week long as I make my way to Regina on Thursday!
Maybe you think I completely mi
ssed the mark on all of this.What did I get right? What did you disagree with? Let me know in the comments.
Find all my articles here.
Written by a Bomber fan, for th
e Bomber fans.Stay with CFL News Hub for the 2022 season.
Continue the CFL Football discussions on our offical CFL Discord Channel
Michael Bailey
November 18, 2022 at 12:26 pm
If you count the 1988 Grey Cup as a ‘playoff’ game then the Bombers have beaten the Lions twice since 1977. 1984 & 1988.