Mike

As someone who has been open in suggesting Wild may be a casualty in the offseason ... this is ridiculous.

Nooo Quinshad. They keep bringing in all these good looking prospects at receiver and none of them seem to stick.

Riders winning their last game at the old barn would be an amazing help to us in every single way

This is awesome. Glad this place provides the means to allow our community to do things like this.

WR - Adams SB - Dressler SB - Denmark SB - Kohlert WR - Gurley

Okay - let's do this then. In his last 18 games, he has 1181 yards and 8 touchdowns. I'm not benching that either.

I'm not sitting a guy who was on a 1500 yard pace any longer than I have to. Maybe he doesn't have a lengthy resume, but he was on pace to be a breakout receiver this year and if the choice is Gurley or Adams, it's Adams easily.

I'm more upset none of the players who did dress played.

That's not how it works at all. Whoever is explaining it that way is mistaken. It pretty clearly states "next available" and if you've traded it, it's not available. So they'll lose their 2018 first rounder.

Um .. yes

But based on your attitude towards this season so far, you sure don't seem to care about *only* the results, so why do *only* the results matter in this case?

We already know they weren't his first choice. He wanted Stubler and Maas.

I actually agree with you.

Some people can just never be happy.

This is an interesting way to look at things.

What had he done to earn three years when he was first hired? Three years isn't typically a reward, it's a standard.

Can you get me a discount on Flavorgod?

Means nothing.

Majorly.

Because you're missing the big picture. When contracts aren't guaranteed (like in the CFL) it doesn't matter the term you give a guy. It also was nowhere near as bad as the original terms that were reported depicted the deal to be. So all in all, the contract was handed out to keep an asset that ended up getting us a very good return. And no offense, but Kyle Walters has and always will have a better grasp of the market value of his players as assets than you or I will.

And I turned out to be right.

I also don't think you can give O'Shea anything less than 3 years. He signed for 3 years originally, you're extending him because he's done what you ask him to and now you give him less security than when you first hired him? I can't see it. Many people call years 1 and 2 a failure. I don't. I call them building the foundation. Was this year a failure for Saskatchewan? Or was it the time necessary to build the foundation for what is shaping up to be a pretty good team?

I guess I should preface that by saying I'm assuming giving each of them extra years on their deals would lower the overall price tag. You don't get that many years unless you give up some dollars so that's how I'd imagine this working out.

Meh, I happen to think it's a pretty darn good idea.

I can't understand how he's employed still to be honest. He's a terrible GM who inherited an all-time great at the most important position on the field and has been living off it ever since. Ever since he's been forced to build a team without Calvillo, he's been far and away the most disappointing front office member in the entire CFL. He's a great talent scout and if he was canned, I'd have no problem if we were to hire him and truthfully, I'm quite sure he could get work as a NFL scout if he chose to, but as a GM he's absolutely miserable. The list of his mistakes reads like a novel.