Mike

I like the second one, not so much the first one. Rutley makes things easier for Durant, imo

To me in the West, Spencer Wilson is the easy choice at one spot and then it's probably a toss up between Figueroa and Bryant.

Can't really agree with that to be honest. He's gotta be what, 50%? on the "key ones" this year? If the key ones were still there, we'd be 7-1 right now. And don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Medlock fan and I'm thrilled we have him. I'm sure he's not happy with his performance this year though, especially compared to last. He's having a good year, he's just not having the kind of immortal season he had last year.

If I'm voting on our player awards right now ... MOP is Nichols, MOC is Harris, MOL is Bond, MOSTP is Lankford, MODP is Randle and MOR is Thorpe. As for CFL all-stars, I believe we'd have a few at this stage of the game. Harris, Adams, Bond, Goossen, Westerman, Leggett, Heath and Randle all in the running.

No chance is Medlock even remotely in consideration for our MOP this season. His numbers are skewed because he's tried by far the highest volume of lengthy kicks in ridiculous situations (crosswinds, etc) but he's statistically the worst FG kicker in the league right now. Obviously not true, but he's not really having a very good year - he's just kicking a lot of volume because our offense is always getting into FG range. I mean really, look how well our offense is doing - he's tried 60 scoring kicks (FG + converts) and second closest is Paredes with 48. Nichols + Harris are the two obvious choices right now and really, IMO, what it comes down to is this: if Harris gets 1000/1000, he'll be the CFL MOP. If he doesn't, he won't even be our representative.

Except the intent of the play is not to put Nichols in a one on one jump ball situation. Nichols can have as much position as he wants, he's not a receiver. The intent of the play is that the D loses track of Nichols and he's wide open in the end zone. The fact that the half picked up on it means the play was pretty much dead in the water, unless you suddenly think Adams and Nichols switched bodies and Nichols is a red zone threat and Adams can put touch on the ball like a QB.

Never said it was a big deal. Just because I feel it's worth mentioning doesn't mean it's "such a big deal", just that it's worth discussing. Nothing is to say any single play has a 100% chance of success at any given time, but the trick play was a bad call. Plain and simple. You can point out all the positives you want (it wasn't a turnover, we still got points, we still won, we still have a great offense) and they're all correct. But that one stupid play call was like letting the air out of a balloon, it took the energy out of the crowd entirely and no offense to you Spuds, but if this was any team other than the Bombers, you'd be saying the exact same thing - I've seen you do it.

Mike O'Shea considers every player a starter, he's said it multiple times. Jones from Loffler would be a downgrade no matter how you paint the picture.

Sounds like Loffler may be out.

NXT awesome Summerslam terrible

There's a pretty clear difference to me and it's not just a matter of saying "oh, a trick play see he's not conservative!" I'm a big Lapo fan and I don't give him as much of a hard time as some others may want to, but that play call was horrendous for so many reasons. We marched the ball down the field at will in front of the biggest crowd of the year, coming away with a touchdown on our first possession of the game would've put an exclamation mark on things for a crowd that was dying for an excuse to go nuts. Our yardage on each play of that drive (not counting the short yardage play) was 9, 8, 12, 9, 16, 6, 5 - we were first and goal on the 6 yard line. 7 plays consecutively with positive yardage, not a single incompletion and we land ourselves in striking distance. We were KILLING them and we just gave it all back in one stupid decision. Here's my issue with the call: even if you want to call it, call it on second down. Calling it on first down basically killing two downs at once because now we're in goal 14 yards out and Edmonton essentially just had to play the line of scrimmage. Call the smart play on first down and if THAT fails, get creative. Don't piss away an entire drive to give yourself a chubby because you made a fancy play call. It took the energy out of the building entirely and it was just unnecessary. There's a difference between being conservative and being smart and I'm sure even LaPolice would look back on that and know he made a bad call. It happens, every OC does it. That doesn't mean it WASN'T a bad call.

Not sure how I feel about Montreal, to be honest. On paper, they're a pretty bad team. On the field, they either seem to be right in the mix or completely out of it. They never just seem to do "okay". That being said, Durant is obviously not the same DD anymore. They're a team that I expect is going to get worse as the soreness and injuries pile up, their team is way too old to handle it the same way a younger team can. They don't have that *elite* playmaking type of guy that can take over a game and I'm hopeful that we can avoid giving up the big play. As much as Montreal should have beat us the last time we played them, it was a tricky game for us. Medlock missed two kicks and that in itself can change the scope of a game entirely. That's not likely going to happen again. Montreal also hasn't had to face the two headed monster we have in our backfield, which has entirely changed the look of our offense. I also feel like their offense without Rutley is a little less potent (even though he's the backup) and I feel like putting Sutton in instead makes DD worse, as he's not able to rely on that checkdown since Sutton is miserable out of the backfield as a receiver - it's no coincidence Durant has had his two best games of the season when Sutton was out. Quite honestly, with them on a short week, playing old and beat up ... I think we handle them quite easily.

He could and I don't like Lankford that much so I hope that's what happens, I just don't see it.

I have to wonder what happens when Dress is healthy. Part of me thinks Denmark is going to sit. We can't bench Flanders. And as far as what I see out there on the field, we have plenty of weapons among the tops in the CFL. Harris, Dressler, Adams ... Thorpe and Flanders are incredible complimentary pieces. There's really no denying it. We have an elite offence.

I meant he needs to beat a team viewed as "elite", Edmonton wasn't that kind of team last year.

Gone. Have fun BigBlue!

Both teams are lucky to have such star players. Edmonton and Winnipeg are both going to be forces. That's good for all of us.

You want elite numbers, Ripper? And you want to know how and why Nichols has better numbers than Glenn? Nichols has put up 40 points more than Glenn - that's nearly 6 a game. Nichols has turned the ball over half as often as Glenn. He's first in the league for points scored for crying out loud. Nichols has elite numbers. The only thing preventing me from calling him elite is he hasn't beat Calgary yet. Or, I guess .. Edmonton. If Nichols comes out and hammers Edmonton tonight, I may have to just change my mind once and for all.

Got two upper deck tickets for tonight's game. PM me your e-mail address if you want them - first come, first serve.

I keep ignoring this stupid comment, but you continue to make it. If you want to argue numbers, Nichols IS elite. His statistics are elite statistics. It's everything else that has me questioning it. Drives me nuts when someone is supporting their reasonable argument with terrible points.

Let's be honest, Rider fans would kill to have a guy like Matt Nichols right now.

I guess that blows your logic that we are a top 3 team out of the water then.

On paper, we're superior almost everywhere except at QB. They've still got some all-star caliber players (Reilly, Willis, Ladler, Bowers, Hazelton) but they're a very, very beat up team. What I'm really curious about is how they're going to do on the DL with almost no solid bodies to rotate in. Mike Moore is adequate, not sure about Yates but that's a lot of reps for guys (Bowers and Boateng) who have had their success in controlled rep counts so far.

And re: Thursday, I don't think I've ever been more convinced of a win against an undefeated team. I was less confident we were going to beat Hamilton. I think we stomp Edmonton. Reilly struggles with our defence for some reason. Their OL is beat up. Their DL is beat up. We're going to put the boots to them. Bombers by two possessions.

Reilly and Mitchell are head and shoulders the #1 and #2 QBs in the CFL, in that order. However as a big not-Nichols guy, I don't see how anyone can say he's not number 3. Every guy on this list loses. Every guy has good games, bad games, losses in games they should've won and wins in games they should've lost. I truly think the reason that Nichols doesn't get as much love is because he never puts together a game where the Bombers go out and kill a team. They don't 60-1 anybody. But they win. And he's a big part of it. Nichols is very quickly turning me into a believer, which is crazy because when he took over from Willy, I was beyond convinced it was temporary and he'd never amount to anything. I'd be curious to see the numbers of each of those three guys since Nichols became a starter. Just to measure it. I know Nichols has a better winning % than Reilly and a worse one than Mitchell. But what are the QB stats. Would be interesting.