What a bad trip, daddio

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/08/2009 (6138 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

And so it was that on the 40th anniversary of the psychedelic, hippie experience known as Woodstock — on Retro Night, no less — the Winnipeg Blue Bombers had themselves an "acid test."

Hmmmm. Guess this is what Grateful Dead fans call a bad trip.

Not groovy, man.

But make no mistake: Hosting the CFL powerhouse Montreal Alouettes was a test for a Bombers football team that has been difficult to figure.

That’s because they’ve always seem to have an excuse for patience. Whether it’s a new quarterback or a gritty defensive performance or racking up a couple hundred yards rushing; fans were continually offered reasons to hope.

No different last week in Calgary, when the Bombers followed a truly pitiful first half offensively with a strong — even surprising — explosion in the final two quarters. Or, at least, what passes for offensive explosiveness in Bomberville these days.

So, again, it was suggested a corner had been turned. The lights had gone on.

Well, good thing for the Montreal Alouettes. Because that’s a football team that will end any hallucinations or delusions of grandeur. They will expose pretenders and frauds.

Now maybe the spin out of Saturday night’s 39-12 loss to the Als will focus on turnovers; how the Bombers coughed up the dead pig three times and how the visitors cashed in those two fumbles and interception into three majors.

But that would be missing the point. That would only mask the Bombers much deeper problems, which — even seven games into the season — date back to head coach Mike Kelly’s decision to bring in "his" quarterback in Stefan LeFors; the failure of LeFors and the offence to deliver immediate results and the subsequent Hail Mary call for Michael Bishop.

That’s why it’s half-past August and the Bombers, now 2-5, look so disorganized and ineffective relative to almost any other CFL team (Hello, Argonauts).

I mean, does Bishop look like the answer? Really? Totals: 13-of-34 for 155 yards and two interceptions. Are those numbers any better than Kevin Glenn’s of last year, who by all accounts wasn’t nearly good enough?

And what of LeFors? Is Kelly’s guy not improving in practice to the point LeFors might not get another opportunity unless the Bombers offence stops remaining a liability? Is the kid out of the picture entirely?

But that’s what happens when a team is forced into making a desperate move that blows up every decision and game planning that’s come before.

Saturday night was Bishop’s third game in a Winnipeg uniform and so far he’s produced in about three quarters and been little more than average in the rest, mainly for two reasons.

Reason No. 1: What do you expect from a guy who’s hauled off the couch in Week 4 and thrown into an already dysfunctional offence on a losing team? This isn’t a Disney movie, it’s professional football.

Reason No. 2: This is Michael Bishop. Yes, he’s got a rifle arm and he can run around and make plays. He can be a threat. But only if there’s an Arland Bruce or two around to turn a mad scramble into a 80-yard touchdown pass. Besides, no offence, if Bishop was so dangerous and talented, then why the heck was he waiting by the phone in Texas when the Bombers called?

This isn’t about harping about past mistakes. What’s done is done.

But moving forward, still with 11 games left in the 2009 season, Kelly and the Bombers are going to have to decide ASAP whether their detour to Bishop is about to drive them off a cliff.

And here’s another thing: You can change quarterbacks. You can change receivers who aren’t producing. You can even change offensive lineman, citing the need for a new direction. But sooner or later, it’s not going to be about the players — it’s going to be about the offensive scheme they’re being asked to run.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Yes, Mike Kelly’s offensive scheme. We’ve been told it’s too complicated. We’ve been told it’s too simple. But this much is self-evident: It ain’t working.

Seriously, how many games do you have to lose, how many players do you have to change, before the time comes to revisit an offence that seems to have done little more than turn 1,000-yard receivers into decoys?

This is the same Kelly who vowed he was going to be the only one to touch the quarterbacks. This is the same Kelly who refuses to bring in an offensive co-ordinator to replace himself.

Just wondering, how’s it working out so far?

randy.turner@freepress.mb.ca

Randy Turner
Reporter

Randy Turner spent much of his journalistic career on the road. A lot of roads. Dirt roads, snow-packed roads, U.S. interstates and foreign highways. In other words, he got a lot of kilometres on the odometer, if you know what we mean.

   Read full biography