Mark H.

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.

Missing "Friday night lights" Good stuff, but sorta pathetic how true most of it is...

Knapp is napping

I was surprised at how poorly McCallum punted.

Don't worry about it, the only play he focused on was the only good play Hamilton ran in the whole first half. That was a very annoying segment. It was almost like they had decided before the game that they would talking about Hamilton.

How do you know Grigsby was Willy's first read on the play? When exactly is sending your RB out to the flats a bad call?

Good thing, that any Willy haters don't have to Not much choking going on...they're still finding reason why he sucks.

Speaking of not kidding ourselves: if and when Watson comes back we could very well have someone else injured. It just gives us one more option with ratio. We have the ability to start 3 Americans on the OL, we have Canadians who can play effectively in the secondary, and we have three Canadian receivers who are capable of being every down players.

Is it really that low percentage though? RB on a linebacker or DL and just lob it over the coverage... Khari Jones put a lot of tds on the board just by putting the ball up and letting guys make a play on it why shouldn't Willy? It was a good way to counter the way Hammy was stacking the middle. Unorthodox yes, a bad call, no.

it's so easy to forget that he only had a handful of starts prior to this season, looks like a poised veteran out there so far. Not to mention...his leadership is having a trickle down effect on the entire team.

??? 119 yards from scrimmage and two Touchdowns.

The Big Blue will dine on Tiger Shrimp tonight... ...with spoons of course.

Play contain instead of focussing on hits and sacks...

Does anyone have any thoughts on why the OL became a 'Canadian position'? Surely the position requires as much coaching and development as any other?

Let's just say...that ship sailed a LONG TIME ago. LOL yeah I'm just ribbing you. No worries. In other news...I think this is supposed to be a restaurant thread...

Trestman? the team was well-run before Trestman... Calvillo?? It sure makes it easy to run a team when you're winning all the time... Disagree. Calvillo looked he was done until Trestman took over that team. Trestman's max protection scheme got a few more years out of Calvillo. And wasn't trying Popp to be GM/HC for a while?