Mark H.

Which seems like it's becoming less effective - Chick sure didn't seem to bite on the play action too often.

Well the only points sask scored was when its offense was off the field And they were held to a field goal on two of the turnovers - that's a win for our D.

As long as they address the root cause of the turnovers. An anemic running game which led to additional pressure on Willy. Week after week I've been amazed that the play action continued to work for the Bombers.

They double-teamed Chick as often as possible. I'm not sure why Penton tweeted 'they never double-teamed him.' What were they supposed to do? Double team Chick and let Brackenridge come right up the gap?

Looking back at this game, I guess I was pumped about our 5 - 1 record and didn't stop to consider one very important fact. Matthias Goossen was making his first start against what is probably the best DL in the league. Yep, January and Howard had trouble with Chick, but the Riders ran some successful stunts in the interior as well. If y'all watch the game again, you'll notice Goossen was the one they were picking on. That was a baptism by fire for him, to say the least.

This discussion that you claim you're not having - I dare say you're quite adept at adding comments that you know will rile people up.

Indeed. And anyone who does that will eventually compromise their own religious freedom.

TUP: I didn't quote you exactly right, you said "damn naive" unquote. The story of casting the first stone is not a contradiction. It's an example of a law that was changed. "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone." I'm unaware of anything that contradicts this statement.

Nice to see a CIS kid doing well.

First, complaining about name calling when you've referred to people as 'dammed ignorant' unquote is quite like the pot calling the kettle black. Peoples' personal faith means a lot to them, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you can't relate to that, so be it, that's your prerogative. As for your other question, I think there are some examples of absolute authority. Take adultery for example. According to old Testament Law, a person should be stoned for committing adultery, people took that as the ultimate authority. But when they asked Jesus his answer was "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." To me that's a concrete statement. There are others, but I really like that one. And it's a great response when people use religion as an excuse for homophobia.

Considering that the first field goal was due to an interception, the D literally pitched a shut out in the first half. This team has proved they can regroup, and I think they will. But watching Messam chew up yards and minutes when they had the lead - did give one an inevitable feeling.

Am I missing something? Special teams had one maybe two (washington returning the first missed field goal) bad plays tonight. The coverage was certainly much better than it has been, probably the best it has been. That one punt where jackson looked up and it was nothing but blue was a thing of beauty. We hit all the field goals, kick offs where nice and deep...one bad fumble and special teams are a disaster??? Not missing a thing - some people just like to troll after a bad loss.

That Max Hall fellow - they never dropped any of his passes - he just floated them in there. Shame that he was cut.

Always appropriate in a whiskey debate:

Regarding the first bolded sentence, I would say that it is sad that people are stupid enough to make the connection between having the traditional Christian view of homosexuality and anti-gay hatred. I'm curious to know what the traditional christian view of homosexuality is Well... The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. For example, passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) has been interpreted by some as condemning homosexual practice. My argument is the Bible was written by man X amount of years ago in a very, very, very different world. The idea that the Bible is the word of God is simply not true. Its the word of man interpreting what he believes is the word of God with all the personal and political influences of the time. Any religious person who holds the Bible up as the final word on anything is pretty damn naive. Anything at all? Where do you put things like the Golden Rule? Where do you think the Civil Law system originated from? I think you know exactly what I meant. Probably. But the post is poorly worded and inflammatory.

what is the gin of choice in the do or die household? I believe it's Bombay - correct?

Regarding the first bolded sentence, I would say that it is sad that people are stupid enough to make the connection between having the traditional Christian view of homosexuality and anti-gay hatred. I'm curious to know what the traditional christian view of homosexuality is Well... The Bible refers to sexual practices that may be called "homosexual" in today's world, but the original language texts of the Bible do not refer explicitly to homosexuality as a sexual orientation. For example, passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) has been interpreted by some as condemning homosexual practice. My argument is the Bible was written by man X amount of years ago in a very, very, very different world. The idea that the Bible is the word of God is simply not true. Its the word of man interpreting what he believes is the word of God with all the personal and political influences of the time. Any religious person who holds the Bible up as the final word on anything is pretty damn naive. Anything at all? Where do you put things like the Golden Rule? Where do you think the Civil Law system originated from?

I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that point.

Actually, without war, and I mean no war at all, none of the above would've happened. War has become so ingrained in us - we forget to consider what a peaceful world could look like. The idea that we must fight wars to create peace is inherently flawed. This year is the 100th anniversary of World War I. That war is the classic example of what happens when too many people blindly support war. As for Duck Dynasty, I have no respect for that show; none whatsoever.

Last week was my fourth strike. I'll take Harris when the error is fixed.

I find that the season up to this point is can be summed up like this: I'm sure you're all familiar with the hitch to Denmark that went for a TD in the B.C. game. They ran the same play to Moore on opposite sideline twice, once it was a short gain, once it was a 15 yard gain, IIRC. Then they ran more downfield plays but eventually came back to this play - but this time on the opposite side of the formation with Denmark - in the second half of the game. Last year, plays like that never happened. The O was not enough of a threat further down field to make the short stuff work. An unimaginative running game didn't help either. Last year - if they ran the hitch three times - it usually got stuffed - three times

Agreed, this team is completely different from 2011. The D would generate half a dozen turnovers but the game would still be close.

A legitimate QB, improved coaching, and improved Canadian depth. None of us were expecting all of that to improve as quickly as it did, but it certainly has.

The enigma of BC is the under use of Andrew Harris. Not I'm complaining, but I'm not sure why he was used so little against the Bombers. Then he's a world beater against Calgary the next week.

Horrible call. If that's holding they may as well reduce touchdowns by about half.