TBURGESS

So you fail to see how giving our players practice time benefits our organization? Well Cuss! We just saved ourselves a month of, Pfft, practice and training camp, who needs that headache. Nope. I fail to see why you take a player off the 6 game where his salary is out of the SMS to move him to the IR for at least 2 weeks where his salary counts against the SMS if you're not going to put him on the 46. The only answer seems to be so he can practise with the team. He'd be able to do that next week even if we didn't take him off the 6 game.

I'm legitimately curious...without knowing what the protection schemes were SUPPOSED to be last week, why do you feel this way? No, I don't know what the calls were last week, but I do know that they didn't work and it wasn't just on the Willy hit either. I also know that the QB gets hit a log in MB run offenses and we need to reduce that for Willy to last the season. I don't think the Bombers are stupid so I expect there will be changes made. As you don't know what the protection schemes were SUPPOSED to be last week, why do you think we can run them better this week without making changes?

I expect the Als to bring extra pressure and I expect the Bombers to provide extra protection. Relying on what we did last week, only better, is a recipe for disaster IMO.

Drooling on himself is your definition of too many concussions? Thanks Dr. Spuds. Great work there. I don't know how this forum would function without your insight but I'd kinda like to find out. Yup... I think they brought Buck back too early too many times and he was never the same again. I know what you're believing in every case.... whatever the Bombers say. Nope... I don't believe in the infallibility of concussion protocol, doctors, coaches, or players, but I hope they've got it right this time.

Based on what I saw the first two weeks, I'm not sure that's as true as it once was....BLM has been pretty awful, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened. Calgary has looked out of sorts in the first couple of games. Partly the losses on the O line and partly the teams they've played in Hamilton and Montreal who both have very good defenses.

The reason there are so many arguments around here is same folks just want to rehash the old ones over and over and over again. For example: The Bombers didn't stick to the last second for the second round of cuts. They announced at the same time as everyone else. [sarcasm Font On]I was expecting the fanboys who knew that there was only one right way to announce cuts... at the last second, to start complaining that the Bombers didn't know what they were doing that they needed to take all the time that was available to make the right, not the quick choices. That they couldn't possibly know who to cut unless they argued about it until the last possible second. That they may not be able to get hold of the players they needed to cut before the morning after the cuts. That anything else was stupid and illogical and everyone who thought differently than the fanboys was equally stupid and illogical. [\End Sarcasm Font] Bearpants... What you're missing is that the coaches, doctors, the players themselves and the concussion protocol are not infallible, The Bombers coaches, doctors and players have been wrong the recent past in similar circumstances when it comes to Buck. The possible outcome of being wrong is losing our best and maybe only chance of a winning season in Drew Willy for a longer period of time than 1 game.

Of course, a player can be brought back too soon from injury. Doctor's don't always get it right 100% of the time. Doesn't make it a conspiracy, or that they rushed. A doctor goes with the information they have and make the best possible determination with that information. In Buck's case it may have been too early. In the vast majority they got it right. Who said it was a conspiracy? Not me. I was responding to the fanboys who are pretending that everyone thinks they are Dr's then making fun of that. I hope they got it right in Willy's case because if they didn't, we could lose our franchise QB again.

CFL Game Notes: http://cflmedia.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=3513&Itemid=5 Courtesy of Stats Junkie on that other site. A few things stick out to me: 1. We've scored 11 more points then Montreal, but have given up 47 more points than them in just 2 games. 2. Montreal held a pretty good Calgary offence to 11 points last week. 3. We beat them both times we played them last year. 4. 1 and 1 is good enough for a tie for last in the East and a tie for first in the West. 5. Mtl beat Cgy who beat Ham

I can see what's in it for Neufeld. I don't see what's in it for the Bombers. If there's no room for him on the 46, then it doesn't matter if he practises or not.

Good morning TB....coming to you from post #290. What, no comment? Still won't let it go eh? Keeping a player out doesn't equal keeping a player out who's close for his protection.

Neufeld on the 1 game again. Still don't see any reason we took him of the 6 game early.

Yuk it up boys. The Bombers and their medical staff are completely above board. They've have never brought a franchise player back too soon from injury, especially a head shot. There's not a snowball's hope in hell that they'd ever do that. BTW: Buck says hello.

Straight from the book of illogical thinking...TBurg style. Typical Mr. Dee, You're wrong, you won't admit it and you won't let it go.

Not so fast Bucko. You didn't answer my question that frames the basis of my examples. Logically, you wouldn't hold out 2 NI receivers if they were healthy. So, if they weren't injured, why do it? Because they were close...but not close enough is my answer.Your making stuff up. Why hold them out? Because they were injured. Period. Full stop. Close? Who knows? One of your examples was a day away, which became a day or two, which became a week or more. Was he close one day 1? Nope. Day 2? Nope. Repeated until he finally practiced. It doesn't prove what your saying it does.

Yeah, I knew you targeted me, but on the other hand...neither can you prove it wrong.But I ask you, why would they hold out 2 NI receivers if they were healthy? Of course I can't prove it wrong. That's the whole point. You have no idea if they were ready to play or not, but you used them as examples of the Bombers not allowing players to compete if they were close. There is no way of knowing either way if that's a true statement or not given the amount of info the Bombers release on injured players. I simply called you on it. For some reason you took that as a shot against O'Shea. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread about Willy...

I'm going Harris this week. Sask has a hard time stopping the run.

How do you know that Kohlert and Richards were close to being ready when the Bombers don't give any injury details?That's what you got from that post?Or is that another back-handed slap at Mike O'Shea? What I got from the post is you making statements that you can't possibly back up.

How do you know that Kohlert and Richards were close to being ready when the Bombers don't give any injury details?

I agree with Doug Browns assessment... If you believe Willy wasn't knocked out, I've got a bridge to sell you. Willy saying he wasn't out, is more than a little suspect. Either he doesn't know that he was out or he's saying what he needs to say to get back in the game. Dude wasn't on the field with his eyes closed taking a quick nap. The Bombers didn't report it as a concussion.... they reported it as an 'Upper Body Injury'. The reporters and most folks on this site saw many angles of it. It amazes me, how different folks see the same things and come to different conclusions. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution in this case. I don't want a repeat of Buck coming back too early and becoming broken for good.

Using tweets as clickbait makes some sense, but I can imagine what the reaction would be to: "Who's making great catches today in practice? Check out my article in tomorrow's paper.". or "Is Willy looking good? Check out my report" or "What a great INT!!! Check out my column". No reason they should give it away for nothing. It'd be great if some tweeting fans were there to provide their insight though.

They are newspaper reporters. Tweeting isn't what they are there to do. They're there to get info for their columns tomorrow.

I hope that's not a premonition. Yikes! What a bad typo on my part. LOL

I'm wondering which Bomber team shows up. The one that looked like a real football team and beat up the Riders or the one that looked like they were completely lost against Hamilton? Is our offense really the one that chewed up yards on the ground and in the air against Regina or the one that threw Int's and rang up 2 and outs vs Montreal? Our defense has been consistently bad in both games, but we will be facing a rookie QB, right out of college with one game of experience under his belt and some film on him. If we give up over 400 yards again, then something is seriously wrong no matter if O'Shea is worried or not about it. The biggest question is: Is Willy really OK or not? I know I'll be hold my breath every time he gets hit and I know I won't be alone. We are completely healthy for the first time in a couple of years and Montreal has a ton of injuries (7 on the 1 game and 10 on the 6 game including Crompton, Hebert, and Woods) On paper, we should win this one, but games aren't played on paper,

That's great news SPUDS because we've now got film on Cato so we should be able to make him look like Brohm this week. I expect he'll start throwing the ball at the receiver's feet instead of on the numbers and will forget how to handle the blitz. Should be pretty easy to beat Montreal now. (It's sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on that)

Cato, straight out of college had 1 TC + a week of practice in Montreal. Brohm's had 2 TC's, a full season of practice in Winnipeg, plus a year in Hamilton, plus Las Vegas, plus Buffalo, plus Green Bay. Huge difference in the amount of experience each has.