WBBFanWest

And stop calling me Shirley.

Sure... ac·tive ˈaktiv/ adjective 1. (of a person) engaging or ready to engage in physically energetic pursuits. "I needed to change my lifestyle and become more active" synonyms: energetic, lively, sprightly, spry, mobile, vigorous, vital, dynamic, sporty; 2. doing things for an organization, cause, or campaign, rather than simply giving it one's support. "she was an active member of the church"

I think that Wiecek should show the Bombers and the Jets that he means business and stop writing about them. Talk about devastating!

Ummm, that's always the case...

I think you're struggling with the concept of a starting QB. You play your started because he's the best QB you have. You don't play backups unless you have to, otherwise you are downgrading your most important position for the sake of some playing time. In this past year especially, there were few games where things were so lopsided (one way or the other) that playing the backup(s) was warranted. Besides, Glenn doesn't need a whole bunch of reps to be effective. He can come in cold and hit one of the opposing DB's with a strike at just about anytime. Davis might see so play time this year, but don't expect to see a ton of it. It's pretty clear that O'Shea believes that you pretty much always go with your best option at QB. You let your starter play because he's the guy that's going to get you there (not to mention the fact that you're paying him to play). You play your backup only if you have to.

A first place finish means nothing, just ask ol' Bo.

Yes, how dare us actually pay him to be a starter and then expect him to be one. Seriously though, I think the way we treated Drew was as a professional football player. Did he have the best o line? No. Did he get hit a lot? Yes. Was that all on the O line? Not a chance. If Drew is shell shocked, that's unfortunate, but if you're willing to take the big bucks, then you'd better be ready to take the hits. Funny thing is, I've never heard Drew whine about his time here, just the odd fan.

Not really sure why Marshall felt the need to write this but the only thing that upset me was the fact that I can't get back the time I wasted reading it.

You seem to be forgetting that a third string QB is one hit away from being the backup, and then one hit away from starting. We've seen teams end up with multiple QB injuries in the same season and having to utilize their "interchangeable" guy. You're being more than a bit myopic.

Ya, what you say is true. I really don't think though that the Esks have an overinflated opinion of him. I think that they know he's a hot commodity and if anyone wants him, they are going to have to pay though the nose to get him. More so when there are multiple clubs. If he's going to go somewhere, I hope it's here. But at the same time, if we can re-sign Nichols, that's ok too.

I would have no problem at all with Nichols coming back. I think he's earned it. Having said that, if he wants to play hard ball, so be it. In that case I'd push hard for Franklin and keep Glenn (can't believe I'm saying that). No to Durant. With his injuries and age, there's just too much risk.

To all Bomber fans on this forum, Merry Christmas or Happy Chanukah (or any other holy day). And may the coming year bring you peace, health, and a Grey Cup!

I like you saying this.

That's just it. Those things are really an illusion. If the QB is good, the fans will identify. Go to Calgary and I'm betting you'll see a lot of BLM jerseys. Ask the fans why they are weaing them and I'm betting the zero percent will say "I got this because we developed him ourselves" Now go to Hamilton and see if there are a lot of people wearing Collaros jerseys. I'm betting that the percentages of QB jerseys in those two towns will be fairly similar, even though Hamilton didn't develop him. As for loyalty to the organization, you can actually purchase that. I'd be surprised if there's any player in this league that would be prepared to offer his first team a significant discount in salary simply because he's "loyal". Some guys might want to play for a specific team, but there are very likely other factors, like a spouse's employment or other family stuff that will come into play long before loyalty kicks in. In our case, Sukh Chungh (yes, I know he's not a qb) was developed by this team and I'm sure if you ask him, he'll tell you how proud his is to be a Bomber etc etc. But come the end of his contract (if we can't re-sign him) I'm betting Sukh's going to be way more loyal to his wallet that he is to the Bombers. Developing a player means next to nothing now when talking about retention. Yes, you'll save a little salary for the first contract, but that's it You keep them through $ and $ alone, regardless of how you got them in the first place.

I'm still struggling to understand what the big deal is concerning the idea of "developing" a QB. Does it really matter? Do you get 3 points for a win if you "developed" the QB? Personally, I don't care how or where a QB was developed. The only thing I care about is how good the QB for the Bombers is. That's it. Did we "develop" Khari? Don't care. How did he do when he strapped on the pads? That's the only thing I worry about. And please don't try and suggest that "developing" our own is somehow cheaper, because in these days of free agency, you're only going to get a cheap QB for a couple of years at the most, before the market steps in and adjusts. Nor does it really say much about the scouting department because finding a kid out of college who will develop into the next Ray/BLM/Calvillo is so hit and miss that it's more luck than anything else. So I don't care if we ever "develop" our own. Just get one that can win games for us, you know, like Nichols did this past season.

I rate him as better than anyone else we've had in quite a while, and that's the only metric that really matters. Also, I always chuckle at these "who's better than who" arguments for one simple reason: Our roster does not have Jennings, BLM, Reilly, Durant, Burris, Colaros, Ray, and Cato on it, so who's better than who is irrelevant because it's which team is better than which. We have Nichols and Nichols won 10 of the 13 games he started. That's more than acceptable by any standard and it's certain not "below average" for a starting qb or for a team. We don't need to have the "best" qb to win. We demonstrated that this year. One could argue the BLM was the best qb in the CFL in 2016. Turns out that Calgary won as many Grey Cups this year with him as we did with Nichols. Put the right people around Nichols on O, and he's more than good enough.

CFL Dictionary: Salary - A starter gets payed to start

Wow, you know everything there is to know about the mechanics of football, coaching, schemes AND you're an expert in sports medicine too! With all that knowledge and the obvious demands you must have on your time from CFL and NFL teams desperate for your input, I'm amazed that you can find a moment here and there to post on this forum. Thank you so much...

Last time I checked he was 10-3 this year in the regular season. How, exactly, does this make him a "below-average QB"

And this is why I'm so very thankful that you are NOT Walters

You need to drop the zeros and I think you're just about right

Ya, that's equally laughable. So you're suggesting that this is the case "Please give me a Rider game because they're just sooooo dreamy." Actually, I take that back. It's not equally laughable, it's much more laughable. You would, of course, have some evidence to back this up, or is this another one of those "opinions" that you like to fling around?

Dude, seriously? You actually think that there are refs out there going "Please give me a Bomber game to call cause I want to completely screw them over." Ya, ok then.

Personally, if it takes a review ref more than 60 seconds to come to a decision, then the play was so close that the call on the field should automatically stand. There's either clear evidence or there isn't.

Nice try, but you said that Nichols was no "spring chicken". At 29, clearly he's not old by QB standards, so you were wrong and trying to move the goal posts doesn't change that