WBBFanWest

I started listening, then heard that this would be nothing more than a replay of their earlier interviews and I didn't bother. I'm expecting that prior to next game we're going to hear Bud Grant talking about his opinion on the state of the Bombers.

So I had to miss most of the game last night because of work. Tell me TBurgess, how bad did we end up losing this?

I sure hope that the Bombers don't lose this critically important game, or else I'm going to be like

Sadly, when I called my cable company about TSN GO at this time last year, they told me they were looking into it. Apparently this is a real complex issue because they are still looking into it.

I'd rather that the team do whatever it thinks best to evaluate the talent it's brought in. If that means playing more rookie types to see if they can do the little things right, blocking assignments, routes, coverage etc, then do it. Because the focus isn't on winning, it's on assessing. If they didn't even bother keeping score during exhibition I'd be just fine with that. I'd rather lose the completely irrelevant battles that are exhibition games and win the war, but then again, I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake.

Well, if a politician says it, it's got to be true.

TBurgess is busy this morning so he asked me to post this for him so that everyone can get a understanding about how excited he is for this exhibition game:

Then a winner would be determined by playing Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock... oh wait. https://youtu.be/ROhPZtLSfDA I prefer two man sack races on consecutive sundays. People, come on. The only way to settle this is a good old fashioned trial-by-combat. Nothing says "I'm right" like a head on a pike.

Where did you see that?

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them. For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter. Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator. That's not me Mike. I don't turn everything into a personal matter. I simply don't back down when others do. Sure, I like to agitate. Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun. Keeps the conversations going too. TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup. You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? It doesn't. I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off. Not a lot of time, but some. I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again. I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line. Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO. No, that's actually not a fact. We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion. Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? My answer is: Does it really matter? To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win." Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that. Tim Burke??? Yup, that's the way to make a point around here. You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win? I'm certain we have better players than we are sending. So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game. It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team. In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all. Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'. I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year. I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year. That would mean sending less fringe players this week. We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster. I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field. It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible. I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots. I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent. I could go on, but you get my point. Is my way the only way? Of course not! Never said it was. You're absolutely right.

As I understand it, the purpose of the exhibition season is to see what we've got. Who are the starters, who are the backups, who's going home. The score is irrelevant. Also, I think that most people understand that the team can only bring so many guys to the away exhibition game, so that one tends to be for those that there are still some questions about. So for those penciled in as a starter already, is there a point in bringing most or all of them? No, there isn't. Of course, I think that TBurgess knows all of this too, but he got what he was looking for by arguing this "they need to win" silliness. You know what would drive him to distraction? If everyone just agreed with him.

As others have said, sure is nice when the drama llama decides to visit someone else for a change.

It wasn't just Kelly's coaching abilities that scuttled him here. fixed.

Remember that what Kory alleges and what can actually be proven might not be quite as cut an dried as you seem to think. Let me give you a few examples: 1 - not providing independent doctors: Is there a requirement for the employer to do this? Did the player undertake to have this done on his own if the team refused? If it is required that the team provide this service and refused, did the employee ask for the union to get involved? Who defines what an "independent doctor is? 2 - not providing the best helmet technology: what exactly is "the best technology"? What metrics are used to come to that decision? Is adequate technology sufficient? (Does the company have to supply a cadillac, or will a chevy do?) 3 - Disseminating misinformation: Specifically, what information are we talking about? Just because the employee disagrees with the employer's opinion does not make it "misinformation". Can it be proved that the team knew that the information they were providing was inaccurate and yet did so anyway? And those are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are many more. Again, bear in mind that just because a lawyer says something doesn't make him right. That's why there are courts and that's why plaintiffs actually lose from time to time.

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying that this is simple at all. Rather I'm saying that this is a very complex issue. Sure players can sue. Kory can make whatever claims he wants, that's the easy part. Now comes the hard part; proving your claims.

He's finally found a league where the shotgun is illegal and the jet formation rules supreme. Good for Mike.

repeated my post - deleted

Yet Banks partner in all of this is some guy I've never heard of that had a cup of coffee in the CFL. Calls himself "the flea" or "the tick" or something like that. Banks is trying to make this a class action for players all the way back to the 60's. The 60's? They were only a couple years off from leather helmets for gods sake. Allen played for the Argos for 4 years which is more than a "cup of coffee." Whether you've heard of him or not doesn't really make a difference. The basis for the timeline comes from research that was available at the time. From the article: I think that in 1952 the only thing that was known about brain injury was that if you get hit on the head hard enough it can be bad. No clue as to how to treat it, duration of the injury, long term issues etc. It's not what the lawyer claims, it's what he can prove. And it's about how much billing he can generate. Prove that the medical community had reached a consensus about concussions and their treatment in the 50's 60's and 70's? Ya sure. Even in the 80's and 90's there still seemed to be disagreement about the severity of repeat concussions and how to best deal with it. Best of luck councillor.

There is something to be said for a suit like this one if, and only if, teams and the league knew that there was an issue and either lied to the players or willfully allowed players to play/practice while injured. I really doubt that either of those things is the case, so good luck with the suit. By the way, as I understand it, the dollar figure provided by the "plaintiff" has to be demonstrated. In other words, show us how your group is out 200,000,000 dollars. Punitive damages are different, of course, so I would think that to slap the league that amount of punitive damage would only be done in the case of wonton disregard for the safety of players. Again, good luck with that one. This smacks of Kory trying to see if the can squeeze a bit more money (via negotiated settlement) out of a dead career. He's probably going to find that the only person who might benefit from this silliness is his lawyer.

It's not the fact that he was injured, it's what could the team or league have done differently at that time to mitigate or prevent the damage. So likely, Matt would have a very difficult time winning the suit because at the time he played, there was very little understanding about the impact of concussions, or their long term effects.

Any relation to Hedley?

I sure hope we're paying him what he's worth.

I'm not sure how I feel. I understand your point of view but I also believe that the CFL and NFL have been less than responsible when it comes to brain injuries and they should have to answer for that. I see your point as well. But these guys know that concussions are an issue in this sport. And most guys don't have the patience to wait until their completely healed before they go back onto the field, because they just want to get back out there. At the same time, if the doctor is saying you're cleared to play, then that's wrong as well. But you can't put all the blame on them. But suing for $200 million? Even $100 million would ruin the CFL, and pretty much ruin the careers of all current and future football players, coaches, etc... The issues need to be addressed, but suing the league is not the way to fix the issue. It's a way to line your pockets. Banks isn't looking out for anyone else but himself. It's a class-action lawsuit, he is just leading it. In a way, he is actually sticking his neck out for the benefit of possibly hundreds of players. If the guy leading a class action suit has no class and doesn't see any action, I don't see this going very far.

Thought this was going to be something about cool hats. Sigh...

I agree with Jaxon. I look at it this way, I know way more than all y'all, but I'd never say it,