Sard

True enough, but hindsight tells us that now. To say that 90K would have made it a worthwhile gamble, if he had been injured again, the same bellyaching would be happening regarding other aging vets that need to be let go so that their replacement can be found. Are there others who should have been let go at the same time, sure, but that's easier to say now than it was 10-12 months ago.

I've seen a number of people comment about how letting Janarion Grant go was a huge mistake. It's easy to say that in hindsight now, but with the injuries he had suffered and basically being out for half of the season last year (and possibly the year before as well), the team made the decision that it was time to move on from him, just like they did with Jackson Jeffcoat. At the time that the decision was made, it made sense to go that way, so griping about it now is just sour grapes. The fact that they weren't able to find a decent replacement is a totally different issue.

Funny comment from Farhan about Edmonton not asking about Rick Campbell... since he was fired, I'm pretty sure they don't have to ask permission to talk to him.

We gave O'Shea a shot at HC and look how that turned out. Just because one guy (or 1000) failed at being promoted, doesn't mean the next guy will or won't. If you're just basing it on that, I take it you would prefer we recycle an old coach... As someone else mentioned earlier, maybe Bellefeuille would be interested in coming back?

Do you know anything about the 3 of them, or are you uninspired just because you've never heard of them? Sometimes an unknown quantity is the better way to go rather than recycling coaches.

They always have a moratorium on big news during Grey Cup week, but it does seem surprising that Buck would have even interviewed for the job before the end of the season. He's got bigger fish to fry at this point. If he does end up going, I would wonder if someone on the Bombers O staff would step into the job like Kevin Bourgoin, Jason Hogan, or Marty Costello. Not sure if any of them would want or are qualified for the OC job, but I would suspect that O'Shea would look there first.

Murray Clarke is still a ref in the league, but he hasn't been a head ref for a number of years. Not sure if it was demotion or by choice, but he definitely wasn't great as a head red.

Tough to build a winning team around him though with that albatross of a contract he has.

Wow, that's pretty bad that they can't even get that right... it's pretty easy to check the scores of the game, and knowing that the Labour Day game was in the middle of our 9 game winning streak makes an error like that in an article very questionable.

I think that having a training camp with the team will help and he will show a bit better than he did this year, but overall, he seems like he'll be a middling QB who doesn't deserve the contract that BC threw at him.

There's the pick... And of course it had to be Milligan so the media can slobber all over him.

Why are the BC receivers not going out of bounds to stop the clock?

Not even remotely, they overpaid before asking him to prove himself and that was a big mistake.

He's limping around now too... Seen that one before when things went sideways for him.

That being said, if Rourke had played, I don't think BC even has 19.

I have a feeling VAJ is throwing another pick on this drive.

To stop the clock and try to keep as much time on the clock for their next possession.

Yes, that is correct.

I don't know the rule, but I believe that it should be treated like any scoring or potential scoring play that automatically gets reviewed. Any turnover or potential turnover should be automatically reviewed.

Looked like a INT to me.

It's probably more expensive/dangerous to remove because of the size and weight of it.

With a 9 team league, someone has to have a bye week every week. Agreed though that having 3 teams off at the same time should be eliminated come October.

You misunderstand my comment about the camera angle. What I'm saying is that the camera angle that they have showed that the ball was clearly 1 yard further up field from where they spotted it when his knee touched. The fact that the camera angle is where it is, indicates that the ball was even a little further ahead than that, so the spot of the ball was at least a yard short of where he got it, but it should have been spotted a full yard further up field based on the angle that they do have.

Rewatched the 2 plays and it's very clear that on the sack, the defenders hand is right in the middle of Collaros' back so it should have been a horse collar penalty (1:44:00). On the 3rd and 17 play, they spotted the ball a full yard short of where it was when Collaros' knee hit the ground (1:48:12). Though the camera angle isn't 100% correct, if anything, the ball is further ahead than what it would look like because of the angle.

I haven't rewatched it on tv, but from where I was sitting in the stands, it seemed pretty clear that the guy had Collaros wrapped up and then grabbed the back of his collar to bring him down on the sack. I was shocked at the time that a horse collar wasn't called. As the play went down and the game ended, it was reminiscent of the non-PI call on the pick 6 that basically ended the last game against Toronto.