TBURGESS

I'm sure he's injured. One day morphed into a day or two, morphed into a few days, morphed into reporters not asking the question anymore. We'll see him when we see him. Who knows when that will be.

I don't think anyone is going to get much out of the stream for RB performance. It'll all be about how they grade out on film with following their blocks, pass protection, who followed their assignments to a tee. One or two carries a guy isn't going to teach them much at all, especially behind a revolving door OL. Sounds like you're thinking there were too many RB's on the depth chart to be able to effectively rate their performance.

I knew I'd take some shots this morning. Fire away.

First off let me say I was wrong. I didn't think there was a snowball's hope in hell we'd win a game with that roster, but we did. I know I'm the only poster around here who thought a win was important and I very happy to see we got one. Yes Mike... I would have left Anderson at home and I would have missed a great return that probably won the game for us. No Mike... I still don't think you give everyone a shot just because one player managed a great play. I'd still have prefered to see more reps from 3 RB's and 1 FB to get Westerman, Randel and Moore into the game for a quarter. My take on the game: QB's Willy - No stream, so I can't comment Brohm - Looked like he knew where he wanted to go, but the passess were inaccurate. Marve - Mixed bag. Some good throws, yes even from the pocket, some bad throws, yes even from the scramble. Used his legs to get a first down and a TD and threw a nice TD pass (From the pocket). I'd move him to #2 next week to see what he can do against better competition. Portis - Runs well, but a very long way from being a good QB RB's Cotton - Worst of the bunch last night Rest didn't impress me, except for Anderson's punt return. O Line Gave up some serious pressures and didn't block that well for the run, but way better than I thought they'd be. It wasn't until Griffiths and Everett were in that they looked really bad. Receivers Liked what I saw from Tuinei and Clemons. Gordon and Adams after the TC hype were a let downs. D line Not enough pressure most of the time. No one stood out. LB's Allen looked good he made a great stop at the 1, sniffed out a screen play perfectly and a sack. Still, 4th quarter means playing against the other teams fringe players. Burnett made a couple of plays too. DB's Another unit that did better than I expected. Hall played himself off of the team IMHO. 41 - Jones would have too except for his passport. 4 PI's? Good or bad under the new rules?

I had the same problem with Chrome. Worked fine for me in Firefox so I didn't look any further for a real solution.

Just a note for Chrome users... One of my extensions, I haven't tracked down which one but I'll guess it's the ad blocker, kills the signon process on TSN Go. My workaround is to use Firefox which works like a charm for me. (Different set of extensions)

This isn't a rec league where every player gets to play. It's pro ball. Want to get a chance to play? Earn it in practice. Guys who look good in practice, but can't bring it in a game will be gone pretty quickly. Sure there may be players who are better in games than practice, but they still need to be good enough in practice to earn a shot IMO. If it's silly to worry about who's then you must feel pretty silly, because you're the one who keeps bringing it up. For the hundred time... I'm not saying only bring vets nor am I saying don't bring any rookies. I'm saying bring more starters and less fringe players. 3 to 5 players would make a big difference. Quite honestly, I don't get why you even care what I think.

Randel's changing positions. I'd like to see how it's going... Even for a quarter

Which Randle? Bradley is playing and I'm not really sure what Chris has to prove in the first pre-season game...

IMO the most important battles are at RB, Receiver and LB's. Too many bodies. Too few roster spots.

I don't care what you believe.

TBurgess is excited about watching this game. Especially interested in seeing J Adams, J Briggs, D Allan, T Burnett, J Gordon, M Goosen, S Chungh, B Brohm and R Marve. Would have loved to see Moore, Westerman, Randel and Hurl too.

Both statements are facts (Just for Mike) as I said in my original post. I started with the evaluation part. It's simply a statement on how the Bombers chose to set up this weeks roster, not a Bombers suck statement. Folks choose to react to the perceived negativity and ignore the rest and it's been totally blown out of proportion in the last day or so. We try to bring in competition across the board. We need to find several starters and some backups and hopefully some players who push out last years starters. That's the whole point of scouting, drafting and TC. That doesn't mean we have to give every one of them preseason playing time or even give them a 'real shot' at making the team. My idea is to focus our resources mostly on those who've risen to the top against CFL competition. The bottom of the roster changes, probably daily in TC. After a week of TC, some players have worked their way up the depth chart like Jhomo Gordon. Some are working their way down and some have started and stayed at the bottom. I want us to evaluate those who've risen towards the top of the depth chart at their positions more closely than those who are falling or not moving up. For example I don't think we can properly evaluate 5 RB's plus 3 FB 's behind that O line in one game. 3 RB's + 2 FB's would free up 3 spots for guys like Westerman who's never played a CFL game before and Moore who missed a lot of last season and Randle who's learning a new position.

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them. For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter. Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator. That's not me Mike. I don't turn everything into a personal matter. I simply don't back down when others do. Sure, I like to agitate. Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun. Keeps the conversations going too. TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup. You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? It doesn't. I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off. Not a lot of time, but some. I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again. I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line. Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO. No, that's actually not a fact. We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion. Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? My answer is: Does it really matter? To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win." Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that. Tim Burke??? Yup, that's the way to make a point around here. You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win? I'm certain we have better players than we are sending. So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game. It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team. In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all. Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'. I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year. I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year. That would mean sending less fringe players this week. We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster. I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field. It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible. I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots. I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent. I could go on, but you get my point. Is my way the only way? Of course not! Never said it was. I definitely see your where you're coming from, but stating that as fact is completely inaccurate. It is your opinion of this roster that it wasn't designed to win. Is winning the first priority with the preseason? Most people I think would say no, but some, like you, would say yes. Of course we would have a better chance at winning if Willy played the entire game, we had a couple of his go to receivers out there, and some of the key linemen in front of him. But to say with fact that because these elements are not part of the game means that we don't want to win, is false. Absolutely do you want to field the best team possible. But when you have 2 games to evaluate 80 players, of which a large chunk have never played 3 down ball before, you've got to get them into the games to see what you've ultimately got. If this means sending a junior roster for the first preseason game, then so be it. These guys may be young and inexperienced, but they are just as competitive as anyone we've left at home. Of course we could bring along a bunch of projected starters, score a bunch a points and look really good out there against their second stringers, but what good does that do for the guys who need the playing time to show what they've learnt over the past 10 days? It's not just my opinion. O'Shea stated that the roster is intended to evaluate the players. There are only 3 full time starters from last years team on the roster. It's all about evaluation, not about winning. There shouldn't be any debate on it. The question of 'should we send a roster that's designed to win or not' is what everyone is really typing about, with a little of the coaches know better than you do thrown in for good measure. I'm not suggesting that we only send starters or that we have to win. Both of those ideas come from other posters who pretend that's what I said so they can argue. I'm saying we should send some starters and some guys on the bubble and the guys who have a realistic chance of making the team. Leave the bottom groups at home because they are very unlikely to make the team anyway. Take some additional players who are pencilled in as starters. That would make for better evaluation of the players who need to be evaluated and give us a realistic chance of starting 2015 with a win, which obviously means nothing to a bunch of you. My opinion matters about as much as every other posters around here. Which is to say it doesn't matter at all. When I say I'd do something different than the Bombers are doing, no matter what the topic is, a bunch of folks take it personally and set out to yell me down. It's funny how absurd the 'arguments' get. In this case, the roster we're sending is designed to evaluate not to win morphs into it doesn't matter if we win and you don't know anything Jon Snow (Or TBurgess in this case).

I needed to sign on to TSN go last night to watch the Ticats - Redblacks game. It wasn't on any of the TSN feeds. It was under tsn/cfl at the top right.

Or different scheme, different defence in general, different players around him... But yea, you are right.. It's just a simple they are right or we are wrong... Smh. It's the same defence in general. It's Halls scheme in both Regina and Winnipeg. So another fail for you.

Wow. Talking about looking for stuff to complain about. It is an unprofessional feed with people talking over each other etc. It's still great to see some football again.

The point is that when he looked good the book wasn't out on Printers yet and teams didn't play to just keep him in the pocket. Once he came back and people knew what he was about they took away his legs and he couldn't beat them with his arm. We simply don't know if Marve can do that yet. Being able to scramble and run is a good asset for a qb to have, but they still need to be able to pass from the pocket first and foremost. Agree to disagree. There's more than one way to be a good QB. If you're a Ricky Ray type, that's from the pocket. If you're a Flutie or Reilly type then it's from moving the pocket around and using your legs when needed. Printers had a great year, went to the NFL, wasn't the same when he came back. He turned out to be a one trick pony. His biggest problem wasn't throwing from the pocket, it was that he wasn't the brightest bulb in the box and his team wouldn't go the extra mile for him. Marve's had less than 60 minutes of playing time behind a horrid O line. Of course we don't know if he can pass from the pocket yet. Being a pocket passer is a good asset to have, but it's not the be all and end all of playing QB. You still fail to grasp the point. Flutie and Reilly could and also can pass from the pocket so keeping them there really doesn't limit how effective they can be. That's what makes them so dangerous, they can hurt you any which way you like. Same deal with Burris or Durant currently. Can you name a qb that was effective who wasn't able to pass from the pocket but could run? They usually have a good stretch and then get figured out. There is more than one way to be a qb, but a qb that can't pass from the spot where qbs spend most of their time is a guy that won't be any good. What in the less than a game of playing time behind a horrid O line makes you think that Marve's one dimensional and can't throw from the pocket?

Ottawa looks as bad as ever. DeMarco looks about the way I remembered him. Hamilton looks better than I expected. Mathews looks like he belongs. Kinda unprofessional feed, but still great to see some football again.

Sometimes the coaches do have a method to their madness. June 14th - after the 1st preseason game and before the 2nd preseason game - is the first cutdown day. Rosters need to be down to 65 players. So that first preseason game is really the only shot some of those fringe players will have at making a case at staying. These fringe players and backups are going to be injury replacements during the year, so it is important to get an in game evaluation of them even if they aren't likely to be playing. I would also rather give more of the pencilled in starters more time in the 2nd preseason game to ramp up and get into a rhythm for when the games actually matter. Best argument for taking so many fringe players so far. I kind of doubt, however, that players who don't make it to the second week of TC will become our injury replacements. I'd hope that they'd come from the guys who just failed to make the first game roster and maybe those kind of cuts from other teams.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions. Where did I say that? You are arguing using circle logic. You say you can't say who should play because you haven't been to TC, etc yet you feel qualified to criticize who will be playing even though you haven't been to TC, etc. Take a look at my reply a couple of posts ago if you're really interested to know who I'd send. I told you why I don't blindly agree with the coaches. That's not a circular argument.

And where will the QB be when he finds them? In the _ _ _ _ _ _ In the pocket or rolling out or scrambling.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions. So what do you go by, then? You don't trust the coaches and argue they're bringing the wrong type of players to the exhibition game, but you say that the decision on who to bring is up to the coaches and you have no input on who that should be. If you think they're the wrong players, that's a totally fair opinion to have, but then suggest who those right players are -- otherwise, it's an opinion based on nothing but spite for the coaches we've had in town the last 7 years. Which isn't a great way to analyze a roster. I already told everyone that I'd bring more of the starters, less of the fringe players. I'd bring the new players that are pencilled in as starters like Westerman and those who look like they are pushing for starting spots in TC. I'd leave those players who are 3 and 4 down the depth charts in Winnipeg and use them next week if they still have a chance to make the team by that time. We need to decide on who our starting Receivers and RB's will be. The O line on our roster will make it hard to analyse them. We need to decide who our starting LB's will be. The D line on the roster will make that analysis harder too. In short bring a more competitive roster that gives us the best shot at making the right decisions and give our new starters a chance to play with some of the guys they will need to be in sync with in the real season.

Go back and read what I typed. It's not they need to win, it's they didn't build the roster to win. Two entirely different things. I want them to actually try to win, but that's not the same as arguing that they need to win. I remember all the same arguments when we got toasted something like 52-0 in a preseason game. The score is irrelevant, it doesn't matter they told me. We'll do better in the real season they told me. Preseason isn't indicative of how this team will play they told me. You're just being negative they told me. You just come here to complain. I hope we don't get killed. I hope that O line can protect the QB's and make holes for the RB's. I hope all those backups on D can play. I know this game won't be indicative of how we play this year because almost none of our starters will get a chance to play.

Not my call. Haven't been to camp to see them. Don't have access to the meetings, film, etc. Coaches make those decisions. Coaches make the decisions and you criticize those decisions even though you don't have access to practices, meetings, film, etc. The old 'the coaches know more than anyone else' argument. Bomber coaches have crafted 1 winning season since 2008, or 1 in the last 7 seasons, so I don't feel bad about not blindly accepting their decisions. If they can eek out some better records, then I'd put more trust in their decisions.