TBURGESS

Why? It was between Winnipeg and Edmonton. Reilly was already getting the starting job in Edmonton. Winnipeg didn't have anything to offer other than money. Do you really think that Mack would have outbid Edmonton for Reilly? I don't.

Yes Mack should have released our QB's if that got us a better shot at Reilly. He released them anyway a few weeks later. (Bad decision to release Elliott and Brink and keep Buck anyway)

The 4th Quarter was all about Hamilton mistakes. A stupid Int by Burris in FG range followed by a missed short FG. Take those away and add 6 points to Hamilton's score, and they wouldn't need to go for a TD in the end. A long FG would do.

Personally, I couldn't care less what a coach says about the players as long as it's true. Elliott was a turnover machine and Washington did drop the ball too much and Burke didn't have him returning punts for the rest of the year (IIRC). I also don't care what Hervey said. He was just being honest with the press, which I like. This whole 'Throwing the players under the bus' is way overblown IMHO. The players are adults. They know when they have been playing well and they know when they have been playing badly. They should know what their bosses think about them anyways. It's likely not the first time they have heard the comments that they see in print. They chose a public life, so they sometimes get a public dressing down. It comes with the territory. As for Burke's comments on Hervey... Pot meet kettle.

I love that the Bombers will be back in the West. Now all we need to do is go back to those sweet Banjo Bowl jerseys full time. Personally, I'd like to do away with the East/West and have a single division where the top 6 teams make the playoffs.

This is my first chance to see Pencer in action. I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.

And if your team is up by __ points at the half, what then? If the starting QB has under 50 yards passing, I'd still pull him, because he'd be playing badly. The score isn't always a good indicator of how well the QB is playing.

I personally think that Hall has shown more than Goltz, but I'm happy with either getting the start next week. I would like, however, to see the starter pulled if he is under 50 yards passing in the first half.

You're wrong. Stupid mime shows are stupid mime shows and will create complaints among some fans, especially the ones who are over 40.

Montreal has looked better without AC than they did with him. I'd guess we have already seen his last game.

If that were how it went then the Ticats would be in the wrong because the CBA says they have to offer a 1+1 contract as an option, not just a 2+1. I get that, and agree, I'm just trying to figure out that if Williams goal was to get to the NFL ASAP, wouldn't a 1 year + option be explored? The 1 + 1 contract was probably for less money per year. Williams and his agent wouldn't KNOW that he was going to burn up the league so taking the extra dollars for the extra year made sense at the time.

where is this coming from? This was still his first contract right? 2+1 as opposed to 1+1 no? One of us is misunderstanding those docs I linked to (I'm assuming you at least glanced at them) My understanding is the following, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong (because I read that turd from start to finish and would hate to be talking out my ass): 1) Williams signed a 1+1 from the start 2) Hamilton was obligated to confirm in writing that they were exercising his option (the +1 in a 1+1) 3) In the process of doing so, Hamilton referred him to another part of the document asking him to sign for receipt of 'my 2013 option letter', followed by a poorly worded offer to extend his contract by a year. 4) The court agreed that while the language of the contract could be construed as an agreement by Williams to add a third year to his existing 2 year contract, the document was confusing in part and in whole. 5) The court agreed that it made little sense for a skillful player like Williams to knowingly and willingly give up a full year of opportunity to pursue the NFL, citing risk of injury due to his 'small stature', the fact that the average career length of a CFL footballer is only 3 years, and the massive difference in salary. So that's where it comes from. The article is linked, it's all there. I just wanted to get the whole story for my own interest, but the frikken thing is in legalese. My opinion will change if in fact Williams signed a 3 year deal from the very start. But I don't think that's what happened. I read the article and came away with a different understanding. 1. All CFL contracts have a '+1' team option, so Williams 2 year contract would be 2 years + an option year. 2. The club has to send out a document saying they are exercising their '+1' option by a certain date, which they did. 3. The arbitrator thought that document was clear and Williams signed it. 4. The court thought that the document wasn't clear enough so it applied the general contract principle is 'If there is any ambiguity, the reader's version stands', not the writers and overturned the arbitrator. 5. The CFL said they would appeal so Williams is back in limbo. Fall out will be a better document to exercise the '+1' option in CFL contracts and it will be used by all clubs going forward.

The 3rd year of the contract isn't bogus. It's a standard part of the CFL contract and Williams signed it. The Arbitrator said the letter that the Ticats sent was proper notice of picking up the 3rd year. The court disagreed. Hammy will need to start using a better contract in the future to make sure this doesn't happen again. The CFLPA and Williams say he is a free agent now. The CFL and the Ticats disagree and have sent NFL teams notice that they will appeal the decision, which will take some time. Until then, no NFL team will sign Williams. No CFL team till get a shot at Williams until he takes his NFL shot, which probably means around this time next year. At that time, a lot of CFL teams will have interest in him.

Buck hurt = can't cut him = makes vet cutdown day = we pay him for the rest of the season = he isn't going anywhere until the off season at the earliest. Same thing for Morley.

Removing the news from new content is an upgrade for me. I already read the news articles, so I go into the news feed and mark it as read in the morning. Not a big enough deal to complain, but it would be nice if I had a choice of which forums I got in New Content. My saved link is 'View New Content'. I click on the first entry, click on 'first unread', then go through clicking on Next Unread Thread until I get to the end. It works great on my laptop, but the 'next unread thread' doesn't work on my Blackberry (No, I don't want to go to an Android or IPhone). No big deal, but it would be nice if it worked and I'll be happy to test it for you if you don't have a Blackberry to work with.

Total 20-20 Hindsight. If Reilly was shitting the bed right now you wouldn't even be talking about this. Nobody would be. In fact, up until a few weeks ago Reilly was shitting the bed. And I still don't see him getting through this season alive. There is no way he can keep getting smoked like that game in and game out and surviving. Also - if the Bombers had tried for Reilly and failed, by giving up a first round draft pick and cutting QB's, you'd be the first one hollering about how stupid they were. Yeah it was a calculated risk, and a risk that would have resulted in failure. Reilly was going to Edmonton. You obviously don't understand what 20-20 hindsight means. I am saying the same thing now as I did then. That's not 20-20 hindsight. It's reading the situation properly AT THE TIME. If Reilly didn't play well, we would be talking about it, because you would be telling folks that they needed to 'eat crow', kind of like the two or three games Jade actually played well. If the Bombers had given up a 1st or 2nd rounder and not signed Reilly, I'd be saying they made a huge mistake, because.... now try and follow along here... They would have made a huge mistake! As soon as Edmonton made the trade, Reilly was going to Edmonton. Before that the situation wasn't anywhere near as clear, although I'll give you that Mack probably wouldn't have outbid Edmonton anyway because that's not what Mack ever did, but that was Mack's choice.

The first round pick never guaranteed they would get Reilly though! Why in gods name do some of you pretend like it was as simple as trade the pick and sign Reilly? The guy was obviously more interested in going to Edmonton than anywhere else to start with. Oh no. Here comes Round 43967345 with TBurg in the "We could have had Reilly" never-ending argument. Hindsight is always 20-20. Reilly is looking better and better. How he is still upright is what is really impressing me, given the pounding that guy has taken this year. Tate, Buck, Nichols all would have been in the hospital right now if they had endured that kind of punishment. I nor anyone else on this board are really privy to what really went on in the pre-season with Reilly and the Eskimos, and what Mack tried to do. If we had cut all of our QB's and given Reilly the number one role going into TC, and tampered and broke the rules by negotiating with him before the free agent deadline, could we have gotten Reilly? At the stage he was at, with two starts under his belt, was he worth doing it for? Now I'd say "yes". At the time, it was a huge gamble. So of course, "NOW" we can say that the Bombers should have pulled out all of the stops, traded picks, cut people, and offered boatloads of money to get Reilly here. And even after all of that, he probably most likely wouldn't have come. But anyone who says that it was a no-brainer decision that should have been done is just flat-out lying. Hindsight, my Aunt Fanny. I said it at the time and I stick with it now. We should have gone after Reilly. If we couldn't get him, we should have settled for Glenn. We shouldn't have kept Buck. We should have kept Elliott. BTW: It was never a guarantee. It was a calculated risk. No one said it was a no-brainer.

It sounds to me that you like to hide behind your handle. Personally, I wouldn't type anything different if I had a handle instead of using my real name. OTOH, being called by your real name when you haven't provided it is kinda skanky of the posters who do it. But do you know any coaches, players or managers well in the CFL? I do & it can be tough sometimes as I am a fan first. I have my loyalties, ha ha. If you don't know anyone then you can say whatever you like. But when people know you, well.... Thing is, I could change my handle but I don't want to. I just have to watch what I say. And yeah, doing that is skanky. I don't know the coaches, players or managers on a personal level. I could say that it wouldn't change anything if I did, but I don't know for sure if that's true. I'm sure, however that folks who know me would also know my handle. Mike.... Call me Terry if you want to. No problem for me as my handle and name are the same.

It sounds to me that you like to hide behind your handle. Personally, I wouldn't type anything different if I had a handle instead of using my real name. OTOH, being called by your real name when you haven't provided it is kinda skanky of the posters who do it.

Mr. Crowton, please take the window seat to the left. Mr. Burke you're on deck.

The numbers and names are a little hard to read, but those are some nice uniforms. If I were a Lions fan, I'd have to get me one of those slate grey jerseys.

I wouldn't assume that Henroc is going to be under contract. He might get an NFL look as a special teams player, which would pay way more than the CFL. If not, I expect he will want to go to free agency to get the most bucks or at least go to a competitive team. Our best shot at keeping him is to become competitive then 'overpay' him in Free Agency. I agree with protecting our O line first. I'd protect both Kohlert and Watson. The rest aren't that big a deal IMHO.

Kito hasn't been in the NI receiver discussion all year. Last night he dropped a sure TD and then went out and got a blocking penalty on the next special teams play. Other than that, he was invisible.

You're right. It could cause divisions in the team, but those would quickly go away if the defence started playing like it did against BC. We have consistently promoted people into jobs they aren't any good at. A few demotions to the jobs do best would help the team and coaches. Yah, we would be overpaying them for the jobs they are doing, but it's cheaper than bringing in new coaches and paying them too.

At least on East Hastings, you don't become a 'Homeless-sicle' in the winter.