TBURGESS

Popp's big problem was that he wanted to coach as well as be the GM and he's a poor to terrible coach.

The only way I see us losing the game is if we lose Nichols or Harris early on.

BC's not playing well and Edmonton is in a tail spin. I can see why folks are expecting the Riders to be 3rd. The Riders also have the tie breaker against BC and are a bunch of points ahead in the tie breaker with the Eks.

It has to be Lindley. They really don't have any other options except to get Burris back and he's said that's not happening.

Looks like we luck out and play the redblacks starting their 3rd string QB on a short week. Maybe we will get to see our 2nd string QB after all.

A non-fiction novel.

No there aren't enough quality NI QB's to go round. Right now, it would only affect Calgary and Regina. but it would make them worth more than the average import QB. It becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Is it better to pay your 2nd or 3rd string QB more to get an extra backup import and the possibility of a starting NI QB? I'd expect that several teams would go the NI 3rd string route and roll the dice that they'd never have to play.

An NI is an NI and that should include the QB. I don't see a down side to teams choosing to carry a 3rd string NI QB instead of an import. It would certainly be better for Canuck QB development and it would result in an extra backup import for those teams who choose an NI QB. Both are wins IMO.

FortHew = ForTheW

A few points: I'm not the only one who disagrees with the new contact-less practices even folks in the league like BC's O Line coach disagree ( http://3downnation.com/2017/09/13/b-c-lions-coach-laments-practice-rule-changes/ ). I'd bet that he's not alone although the rest aren't likely to come right out and say it. Mike's using the old "the pros know more than you, so you're wrong" argument, when I know he didn't agree with absolutely everything that some of our GM's and coaches have done in the past and had no problems disagreeing with those pros when he thought they were wrong. These forums are pretty much built on questioning what the pros think. Just because players like a change, doesn't automatically make it a good change and we don't even know that all the players like the change anyway. Riddle me this.... Why do players need to practice everything except hitting? Riddle me this 2... How can you evaluate mid-season replacements (especially OL and DL) who weren't with the team during training camp? (Hint: Up until the rule change you could have a padded practice or two if you needed them.)

This thread is about is it good or bad for the league. You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the league has a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. I fart in your general direction. What's the purpose of having a discussion at all if only one opinion is allowed?

I don't like the change. You need to practice the things that you do in games at least once a week. You don't have to practice hitting or tackling because you already know how to do it? It then follows that you don't have to practice route running or power turns or footwork or jamming or getting off the jam anything else for that matter because you already know how by the time you're a pro. This change will really hurt replacement players. No training camp means no hitting practices at all. Not sure how you evaluate a replacement DL or OL if you don't see how they can hit or absorb a hit. A guy who knows where to be and has great footwork may fail miserably when you add hitting to the mix. In season training for the OL and DL will just be a dance. Time will tell, but I bet the level of tackling goes down, and it's not at a high level now.

Quite frankly, it's the first time I've read the accidental part of the rule. It doesn't get called very often. (Google search on the term and CFL brings up a couple of hits from 2011) The receiver initiated the contact (inadvertently) and the DB got called for the penalty, which is consistent with the way the CFL has been calling PI for the last few years. Personally, I'd call it inadvertent tripping with equal position as the receiver tripped while trying to pull away. The DB didn't do anything wrong and couldn't have done anything to prevent the trip.

PENALTY: 1D to Team A, 10 yards in advance PLS (b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following shall apply: (i) Eligible receivers of both teams have an equal right to the ball and are entitled to the positions they occupy. (ii) If an official deems a pass uncatchable and Team B has committed pass interference, it shall be deemed pass interference on an uncatchable ball. (See Rule 6, Section 4, Article 9 (c).) (iii) Pass interference shall not be called if it occurs after the ball has been touched by an eligible receiver of either team. (iv) Inadvertent tripping by a player with equal position shall not be ruled as interference. (v) Tripping an opponent from behind shall be considered accidental pass interference. (vi) Screening (face guarding) of an opponent during an attempt to catch the ball is pass interference. I think we can all agree that it was inadvertent, so the question is do the players have equal position or not. Does equal side by side? Then it's a penalty although the tripping from behind doesn't have inadvertent in it. Does equal mean an equal chance at the ball? Then it's not a penalty.

I'd certainly take Harris over Tate, but I thought Tate did well all things considered. It'll be really interesting to see how Tate does against Montreal this week after a week with starters reps in practice.

I think it was a call that could have gone either way. There was certainly contact after 5 yards. Total over reaction by Mass.

The TD pass was a beautiful throw and he had another good throw dropped by the receiver. Not bad for a guy who has hardly played in the last few years.

The Bombers picked the balls off that our DB's got their hands on. The Riders didn't. Could have been a different game if the Riders held on to a couple of the INT balls that Nichols threw up in the first quarter. The phantom PI in the end zone at the end of the half was A game changer. We went into halftime with a 9 point lead instead of a 5 point lead. I have no idea why Jones didn't use his challenge flag on that one. We won by 20, so the extra 4 points wasn't THE game changer. The Riders made a ton of mistakes that we capitalized on. Carter running it out of the end zone to the 10 then backtracking to the 5 just to get tackled. The stupid onside kick that sucked all the advantage out of their TD and gave us great field position. The stupid onside punt that gave us a short field and more points. My absolute favorite tho was their punt team going to the wrong side of the field because our returner went there and our blockers pointed that way. That one cost them a huge 90+ yard punt return for a TD. I was wondering before the game who the pretenders and who the contenders were. Now I know for sure.

3 Stars: Leggett - Most obvious choice by a country mile. Santos-Knox - They tried to pick on him. He refused to be picked on. Denmark - TD's and great routes. The Happy Honker goes to a player who does something special, no necessarily the best player... The guy in the stands who rejected Bridge when he tried to do the Bomber jump.

Keys to the game are the same as last week: Win the turn over battle Survive the high emotions of the opening quarter Win the war in the trenches

Underhanded - marked by secrecy, chicanery, and deception : not honest and aboveboard Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underhanded Secret? U bet. We hid the receiver on the sideline and we certainly didn't tell BC about the loophole we'd found that no one else had found for a generation or so. Chicanery (deception by artful subterfuge or sophistry)? Yup. Hid a receiver and found a loophole that will likely be closed this off season and used it. Deception: Absolutely. The whole sleeper play is based on deception. Honest and aboveboard? Hardly. Now, lets apply this to the 'fake' injury situation.... Secret? Hardly. Matt, Milt and Doug Brown say it happens. The Riders may not have hid it as well as other teams, but that's kind of the opposite of a secret. Chicanery Yup. Used a known loophole that won't likely be closed in the off season. Deception: Maybe, but I'm pretty sure everyone on the field knew exactly what was happening when it happened, otherwise Harris and Nichols wouldn't have been upset. Honest and aboveboard? Hardly.

Yes really. Finding something obscure that hasn't been done in generations because it's already against the rules in all other situations is pretty underhanded.

It wasn't illegal, but it was underhanded.

As an Atheist, I can tell you that we don't wonder if there's a dog. There's plenty of proof that dogs exist.

Significantly more "Internet Ink" has been spilled on the 3 'injuries' than all of the the other plays combined.