View Single Post
Old
11-08-2012, 10:26 PM
  #79
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilbleeder View Post
As opposed to the lesser pressure when we're bringing him in if we're down by 7, 14 or 21 points?

This train of thought makes no sense in my opinion. It's the ****ing playoffs. There will always be pressure. Let the kid start the game, get into rhythm and get his head into the game.

Putting Joseph is clearly just Reed being stubborn.

We need to pound the ball down the throats of Toronto if we want to win with Joseph. As a passer Joseph scares no one, but if we can open up space through having a run game, it might make it somewhat bearable.

Starting Joseph FFS Reed.
Its arguable that Nichols gets better looks at what the Argos are trying to do from the sidelines for the first few drives then he does on the field. Nichols has not been a quick starter anyway, and we don't have a quick starter.

Thing is if you start Nichols, and he gets eaten alive as a rookie, its game over. Seeya next year in an instant. On the other hand if Joseph struggles Nichols has shown himself to be a good reliever. In this way the Eskimos give themselves two potential chances at having a hothand then one.

In any sport, theres on days and off days for anybody and including QB's. You NEVER know how they will look on a given day in a one game must win playoff.

Giving BOTH Joseph and Nichols a chance may be the right move. That said it might not even happen and nothing prevents the Eskimos from flat out starting Nichols in the game on Sunday.

Not sure why people read so much into the statements. Especially when the statements often don't match exactly what will take place on gameday.

The stupidest single thing the Eskimos could do is STATING that they are starting Nichols? Why would they do that?

Replacement is offline