WBBFanWest

I understand that they are going to re-sign Hurl for more $$ so he can be our starting MAC and run short yardage because... O'Shea

Maybe, but I'm thinking that they have an even softer spot for their paycheques!

I think that there is a difference between last year and this year that will prevent a repeat. First of these is that we do now have people like Santos-Knox that have proven that they're ready to go, in a way that couldn't be said at this point last year. Secondly, I think that O'Shea and Hall are feeling a certain level of pressure concerning the D that they didn't have at this point last year. Last year, most people were happy that we had made the playoffs and expected that things would improve. Well, clearly, the D didn't improve and I think that it's pretty obvious that more is expected of them this year. I don't think that they're going to risk a repeat. So I expect that the D will have a slightly different philosophy. One that doesn't see Hurl as a starter. I expect that privately, O'Shea will be in Walters' ear to make sure that if there are any doubts about the quality of players on the D, that they get addressed in free agency and in US recruiting.

Here's an idea: point out a flaw in my logic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Not to mention the fact that he might be a better/more prepared football player going into 2018 than he was in 2017. Again, when I listened to Walter's interview, it was pretty clear to me that he was signalling that we've come to the end of the Sam Hurl experience. He's happy with the crew he's got, but maybe they'll snag on more free agent should the price be right. So I'm quite confident that Hurl is not coming back as anything but a special teamer. I'm using a bit of deductive reasoning here, but this is what it looks like to me: Where else in the CFL would Hurl be a starting LB? Who else would see him as an upgrade? I can't think of a single team but maybe there might be one. So he has to know that his bargaining power is limited and yet, he still hasn't signed a contract with the Bombers. Might that be because they've offered him a backup player's salary and he's desperately hoping that there is that one team? So I think that if the Bombers really believed he's the answer in the middle, the deal would already be done because he'd be offered starter level money by the only team in the league that would. Ergo, he ain't coming back as a starting LB for us.

WhenI listen to it, I'm hearing that Hurl is not in the mix for the MACK. Walters is saying that Wild and Santos-Knox are both capable of playing that position and that they think that with the people they have already signed, they have a good group. Of course, if someone should become available that would be an upgrade and come at the right price, I've no doubt that Walters pulls the trigger. I think Hurl hits free agency and if there are no takers, he might be back at a special teamer level contract.

or not...

It's sort of hard to figure out the impact of vapor.

And more specifically believe in the power of:

believe in the power of

Feel free to quote me as many times as needed!

No problem:

Hybrid - can proceed by indictment or summarily. They are criminal code charges (federal) and are not ever "provincial". .08 and drive while impaired are criminal code charges but law is administered provinically.

There used to be a charge of "being an idiot under the Trucker's Act" or "drunk and refused to fight" that were go-to reasons to spend a night a guest of Her Majesty.

I only care about what a player can bring to the team. So if acquiring LaFrance makes us a better team, great, sign him up, but if not, it doesn't matter to me where he played university ball or what town he grew up in.

I guess when you publicly declare that someone's going to be the "best ever" before you get that contract signed you kinda weaken your bargaining position.

I agree with you on that. If he believes he's doing the right thing for himself and his family, more power to him.

He does have the right to ask for his release. They have the right to say no. He has the right not to play. They have the right not to pay him. Everyone wins!

Seriously? Common sense says that it is inherent in a contract that parties exchange something for something else . Otherwise there would be no need for a contract. That's not at all the same as "satisfactory to both parties" which is what you claimed earlier.

All this attention to a guy who basically said, "I'm starting a new league in 2020. I don't have any teams or sponsors or a TV contract, but it's going to be huge" I present The next president of the US everyone...

That's funny. You might want to check a bit more on that. If you find something solid, give Rogers/Bell/Telus a call and tell them that they are in big trouble.