Mike

Goltz lost to Calgary and in BC, games that you could quite likely expect to lose anyway. PIerce lost to Montreal and Hamilton, 2 teams that you should beat this year, Hall lost to Hamilton. So yeah, sticking with Pierce gets a LOT of blame for the season being done. He doesn't go into crap mode in Hamilton then the team still has a chance. He doesn't toss up that many ints in the opener against Montreal they might have started the season strong and not been as down as they are. Take your lips off PIerces ass and actually look at what's happened this season, and last as well, Pierce is not the player he used to be, not even close. Let's not forget that Pierce also lost games where our defense was playing at an elite level, whereas Hall and Goltz have been saddled with a marshmallow soft defense supporting them. Hell, even when Pierce had our special teams scoring points for him, he still lost the game.

Somehow I doubt that. He's sucked for the majority of three and a half years here, why is one week going to change your mind?

Judging by your posts and opinions you feel more like someone who hangs out at that other site . Anyways, thankfully we didn't go full circle back to Buck although I wouldn't be surprised if hes back in the lineup for LD. That's my biggest fear. I do NOT want to travel to Regina and have to sit through a game with that guy behind center.

back in Kelowna now.... I was absolutely liquored.

You know ... I'm all for alternate opinions. But I'm starting to get a bit annoyed with your defense of Buck. "Just because" is not a good enough reason. I'd love to actually see you explain your opinion and back it up with something substantial other than you think it's a bad move because you have a personal favorite based upon, well ... what kind of appears to be nothing. You keep saying "Buck is better" .. prove it?

Right choice. Good on you Tim Burke.

I would agree with you IF Buck was a better option than either Goltz or Hall. But he's not. Let's face it, with Buck around, the development of a young QB is not going to be ideal because at some point, he's going to be forced into duty in a situation he's unprepared for. I'd rather see a QB fail because of his own issues than fail because he was put in a less than stellar situation due to the fact that he's riding a QB merry-go-round with a glass veteran. I hate to dwell on Elliott and Brink but how did they perform in relief duty last year when they got ZERO first team reps during the practice week? Compare that to how they performed when they were given the resources and opportunity. Buck hasn't shown me anything that makes me think he's worth spending first team reps on in practice. He's not any more likely to win games than Hall or Goltz at this point and the potential upside that could come with their development (while we still have an opportunity to fight for a playoff spot) is valuable far beyond what miniscule (and personally, I don't think it's ANY) improvement Buck provides us with behind center.

Are you really trying to get me to believe that a coordinator signed a 3 year deal here? Come on now.

It still accomplishes nothing for the future of this franchise. Let's be honest here, one or two wins from Buck in the interim isn't going to do anything but give our boneheaded management a false sense of direction and hope leading into 2014.

Wasn't it you that was beating Hall down? lol

If I was running our team, I'm sure I'd have drunk dialed Jim Barker and tried to trade Tim Burke, Henoc Muamba and our next three draft picks for Ricky Ray by now.

That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional. Not true (unless the league or the PA has made changes in the CBA in that regard). in 2003, the club dressed Khari Jones and Brian Stallworth as their ONLY quarterbacks for a number of games while Pat Barnes was trying out with the Cleveland Browns. True, you got me on a minor technicality. You don't have to dress three quarterbacks according to the CBA but you can only dress 39 non-quarterbacks so if you sit Buck, you only dress 41 players. I guess technically, they could have put him on the 1-game IR and not put him in uniform, but if he's available that would be a silly option considering you can be too injured to play QB but be healthy enough to say ... take a knee to end a half or pin the ball on a convert or something.

That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional.

Yes he has ... Which game did he miss? I dont recall any game where he was not dressed and ready to play. He was listed as the #3 QB because we had to dress three but he would not have played.

Yes he has ...

How is it going to eliminate a distraction? For the entire time he's been here, Buck has been the distraction.

The biggest thing Crowton struggled with was his playcalling more than his schemes, in my opinion. The schemes weren't always the greatest but I thought he brought some interesting looks to our offense. It's just too bad that ultimately, he could never get over the hump where he acknowledged he only had two downs to move the chains.

As per Bob Irving via Twitter, Bellefeuille told the media today that Burke will pick the starting QB on Saturday. Welcome back, Buck Pierce.

Penton's article this morning says we should expect Pierce behind centre this week. Sigh. This team never learns. I'm just so defeated.

51 yards of passing came on throwing into triple coverage, and completing the pass on a double tip drill. 9 times out of 10 it was an INT. Sometimes the breaks fall for you sometimes they don't... at least he moved the ball. It's to bad that Ricky did an even better job. I totally agree with you. But if that's your stance, why did you post this about Hall the other day: "Sometimes the breaks fall for you" .. unless you're Max Hall, then it's just your fault apparently?

Updated OP to include week 8 stats

I use first names for certain people around here (TBurgess, TrueBlue, 17to85, Noeller, Raydawg, Mr. Perfect) just because I've spent so much time talking football with them that it seems awkward for me to call them something else. Or I guess in some cases, I actually see them outside of this forum so I feel weird using a handle to address them. But if anyone had an issue with it, they're free to say so and I'd stop.

Everything I say on here would be just as easy for me to say in public. I'm not hiding behind anything. An unnamed reporter (very popular round these parts) asked me to take down a post about him that I made on OB a few years ago. I told him to shove it. Defamation suit my rear end.

I think your stance is a bit too serious for my personal tastes, but to each his own.