Mike

You would've given up Westerman for a backup OL with terrible footwork and a QB prospect that was out of work 4 weeks ago?

a/s/l? Do you have a webcam??

No Lavertu this week, Cam Thorn going to start at center. Cummings is going to eat his lunch.

You will lose. There's really not a whole lot of tolerance with speeding infractions. Especially school zones.

The Stamps forum seems to despise him now

Up to you, but it's pretty clearly laid out that the school zone is in effect until 5:30 as stupid as it is.

Macho had a pretty good game Friday. Somehow.

So then why was Bruce Johnson your example?

It also wasn't 24-4, it was 22-6, which is a huge difference as it goes from a three score game to a two.

You get fined for discussing a player under contract to another team, period. You would get fined for saying you liked the pink golf shorts he wore at a recent charity event.

Confirmed via Twitter by the club Next man up, Tommy Mayonnaise!

We didn't score a single garbage point. Two score differentials are not garbage time in the CFL. Ever. Maybe with 30 seconds left. Was Montreal playing a prevent on the Darvin TD? Nope.

The funny thing is that over on the Stamps forum, they're bemoaning their team too. I did not know this but apparently Dave Dickenson isn't very highly regarded as a coach in Calgary.

What other reasons for benching someone would you suggest there are other than injury or poor play?

Jones signed for 5.4 a year No way the Jets match 7+ at this point, if the trade off is 4 first round picks. No way.

I know he said he'd match any offer, but I don't think he meant the stupid ones.

I actually thought Montreal gave up on this guy too early, but chalked it up to them being loaded at linebacker. 22 years old. Thought he was a bright spot on their defense when we took it to them in the first PS game.

They'd be insane to match if the return was four first round draft picks. If Boston makes that offer sheet, I'd drive Trouba to the airport myself. And I love Trouba. But that's four potential lottery picks.

Macho was safety of the week according to CFL.ca

My theory? Our youth has a lot to do with it, as does the continuity (or lack thereof) on our roster. Talent level from 1 to 44 on the game day roster obviously plays a part as well. We've come a long way, but we still need to put together a game when every asset we have is in sync and the team is firing on all cylinders. Week 1 was a perfect example of that, in my opinion. We came out and had a better showing in several areas - our run game was stronger, our receivers created better separation, our play calling was improved and our OL performed better. Unfortunately, you take all those factors and couple it with a QB who had one of the worst games of his life and you see how it panned out. Wasted effort by 80% of our offensive structure, sadly. How long should it take is an interesting question, because obviously the answer is never the same. The best way I can put it? The team that corrects their early errors the quickest is most likely to be the team that finishes the year hoisting the Grey Cup. It's easy to be optimistic and say that Drew played one of his worst pro games ever and we were still within striking distance but it's easy to suggest that he might be "damaged goods" at this point as well - I don't agree, as I believe you need a larger sample size, but it's still an opinion held by some.

Something goes wrong on every single play in football, it doesn't take much for multiple things to go wrong in a single instance.

Not sure how I wrote Shayon Green off, I responded to a thread discussing a suggestion Hubbard might play this week by saying I wouldn't be surprised because Green played horrible. You seem to be missing the idea of a forum. We can only drive content to an extent, it's still up to each individual here to share content. I'll give you an example, since you like them so much: Rich posted a thread about our new signing yesterday (which you mentioned we should do more of) and the only reply you provided in that thread was about something that had nothing to do with the thread at all. So maybe look in the mirror if you want content driven in a certain direction. PS - I have no idea how you could possibly think I'm "the most aggressive", I rarely ever post anymore. And "most negative one in this thread"? Hardly negative at all, just sharing my outlook. Which others seem to agree with. So I guess if there's a "most negative", it's a multi-way tie.

And how do you suggest we do that?

As a secondary thought, I think I came up with a better way to explain how I feel. I avoid talking football with people at work or in my family, including my dad who I attend games with, because all you seem to get out of them is "Willy sucks! Wade Miller sucks! Everything sucks! We're the worst!" and I just find it incredibly frustrating to listen to. I come here to avoid all of that and engage in actual DISCUSSION (what went wrong, what went well, what did you think about this play, what did you see in this situation, etc) and it seems like the general attitude around these parts lately is more akin to the water cooler discussion I avoid in every day situations.

I don't mind reading the criticism. I was very critical of our performance on Friday as well, it was a real dumpster fire. It's the other nonsense that makes it so painful to read the forums. It's pretty obvious people have entirely lost patience, but maybe they need to do a bit better in self-moderation because it's just ridiculous to read some of the commentary after one loss. The most frustrating part is the generalizations and the lack of understanding for the situation. I read something along the lines of "our DL looks like it's no good yet again this year" and wondered how someone could make that determination after a game. Same thing with the comments about two rookie defensive backs. I don't want to attack anyone or criticize anyone for their line of thinking, but it just makes reading this site frustrating as someone who, while disappointed, doesn't really want to engage in the hyperbole or exaggerations.