TBURGESS

How can you read: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary & not understand that is the only option for a pay raise? It doesn't say or ignore this. It doesn't say or a completely new contract that's greater than 10%. It doesn't say unless it's a QB. It doesn't say unless they have NFL tryouts. It doesn't say unless they are obviously worth more. It doesn't say you can do anything else, because it is the option, not one of the options. If Rourke comes back next year, the CFL will have to exempt him from the CBA to give him the money he deserves. Twitter mid-year.

Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary - That's the option. It's in black and white in the CBA. How is this hard for anyone to understand. No one can point to anything in the CBA that says otherwise, because it doesn't exist. If the Lions could offer Rourke more this year, they would have. In fact, they asked the league for an out of the CBA to pay Rourke more. Folks are pointing to the word option without reading what the options actually are even after I bolded it. A Canadian Draft Pick's option year in their first contract is not to exceed 10% of the 2nd year base salary.

Option year doesn't mean 'Can ignore the CBA' or 'Allowed to offer a new contract that's more money then the salary grid'. It doesn't even mean 'can offer a new contract' because teams can offer a new contract to every player except a Canadian Draft Pick on their first contract at any time, no matter if it's an option year or not. They can even offer a new contract during the season. Option simply means that the team can tell the player to play out the option year at the agreed upon contract & the players option is to play or sit for the year. We can end this disagreement right now. Just show me in the CBA where they say that teams can offer Canadian Draft Picks on their first contract a new contract in the 3rd year that exceeds the CBA.

It's like trying to correct anti-vaxers. Show them the information in black and white and they say 'I don't believe it' & 'What If' & 'You don't know for sure' & 'You're beating a dead horse'. You can't use facts to convince people who 'don't agree' with the facts. FTR: the CBA says what the options are for 3rd year draft picks & a NEW contract that supersedes the CBA rules for 3rd year draft picks ain't one of them. Folks who hoped that Rourke got hurt again so they could TOLDYASO me are now hoping that Rourke comes back to the CFL next year and gets a new big contract so they can TOLDYASO me. 🙄 I doubt that Rourke comes back to the CFL next year, but if he does & he gets more than the $80k-ish that the CBA states, it will be because the CFL gives BC an out from the CBA. I think that would be fair for everyone involved & I think the next CBA should be modified to allow for draft picks to make what they are worth to the teams who draft them.

Read the CBA. It says that there is an option in the 3rd year for draft picks and says what that option is. The options caps the draft picks salary. It doesn't allow BC to pay him what he deserves. He gets around 80K if he stays in the CFL. He gets $280K USD on the NFL PR. Debunked doesn't mean 'I don't think it means what it says in black and white' in the CBA. I'm not arguing. I'm explaining why you're wrong.

No you stop it. 🤣

Rourke will make more on the PR in the NFL than coming back to the CFL next year.

BC won't be in SMS hell next year, because they can't pay Rourke more than the CBA rules for draft picks say they can. (It's in the rules in black and white, not up for yet another stupid argument.) Rourke will likely be in the NFL for at least the first half of the season anyway. None of VAJ, BLM or Faj-jj will be expensive starting QB's. They'll likely have a cheap 3rd stringer, so they won't be adding more than a couple of 100K to their QB spot. Bringing in a couple of draft picks instead of more expensive backups & dropping Lucky will take care of it.

Rourke looked bad in the first quarter all by himself. The rest of the game it was more the Bomber's D making him look bad & his receivers letting him down. 300 yards passing isn't bad, especially for a young QB starting his first playoff game in hostile territory. One of his 2 picks was a hail merry that we quite frankly should have just knocked down. He threw and ran for more yards than Collaros.

Rourke had a horrible first quarter. He had open guys and couldn't hit them. Some of the throws weren't even close. Missed the first 5 IIRC, that's 3 two and outs to start the game. Put BC in a bind right away. The Lions D took the roll out away from Collaros. That took away the one on ones that we've been so successful at all season & forced Collaros to run up the middle, where he eventually got hurt. Both teams got TD's from their special teams & both teams dropped a couple of picks. Only one team could run the ball. Brady O and the OL won the game for us.

Cold isn't really an advantage or disadvantage for the Bombers. Most players have played in the cold by the time they get to the pros. Everyone will have to play in the same conditions tomorrow. A slippery field is an advantage for the offence, because they know where they're going and the defence has to react. The last BC game shows what happens when one team is playing for next week and the other team is playing to send a message. I wouldn't put too much value on that game or the Rourke-less game. The game that shows the most is the first game we played against them, which made us the only team who beat BC with Rourke at QB. I expect us to try and take Rourke out early. That means pressure and leaving the DB's to cover man. For BC to beat our pressure, they'll need to throw quick, go to screen and draw, or use the 'Milt go deep' that Khari did and throw to a deep receiver. I expect to see them do all three things at different times to try to relieve the pressure. The last time we played them Rourke was short on two deep balls, where their receiver was behind our deep DB. Completing the deep balls is there only real hope of winning IMO. On D, I expect to see a lot of run blitzes on first down. They need to make us one dimensional to give themselves a chance and that means taking away the run, cuz they ain't going to be able to take the pass away unless they take Collaros outta the game & I don't see that happening. I'm hoping for a great game with the right team winning (Yah, I mean the Bombers).

I used to love playing in the cold. The bumps and bruises didn't hurt as much once they got frozen and the crappy fields brought everyone down to my level.

Looking at those numbers, BC would be better off focusing their passing attack on the 10-20 yard range instead of the -5 to 0 yard range.

My guess... Khari to Ottawa and Much-choka stays on in Montreal.

In Lucky's case, it's what happens when your foot gets stuck in the ground and a defender hits your leg. Coulda happened to anyone.

The west dominated the league this year, they should dominate the most outstanding awards too. I'm surprised that MOS got the MOC . I expected Campbell who took his team from missing the playoffs to second best in the league in one year, despite losing his starting phenom QB mid-season to get the nod. I guess the first 15 win season trumps the huge leap in the standings.

Counter counter point... IIRC it's the only time in the CFL that giving a non-winning coach a 3rd year has worked. PLAP thinks loser HC's should get more years, cuz that's exactly where he is right now.

You: I used to almost be someone, so you musta had to deal with someone who felt the same and are angry about it. Me: I used to be someone in my field, I don't go on about it online, cuz it no longer matters. You: Not understanding that both statements about Rourke are the same thing, then calling me out on my intellect. Me: That should be really embarrassing for you. You: Everyone believes me, we should take a poll. Me: So what? That doesn't turn your opinion into a fact, You: Personal slurs. Me: Yawn You: Finally admitting that you are giving opinions not facts. Me: Priceless!

Can't win with facts, go to personal attacks. The argument so far: 1) You: The facts show he's ahead of schedule. Me: Yup. You: Look at this that shows he's ahead of schedule. Me: Yup You: That means the Lions are a horrible organization who are forcing him back too soon. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. Repeat from 1 for days. You: You aren't reading what I'm saying. Me: I am, but I'm disagreeing with your conclusion. 2) You: Everyone believes me. Me: ALMOST everyone & so what? That doesn't turn your opinion into a fact, You: Personal slurs. Me: Yawn You: You twist everything. Me: Name one. You: I can't. You: You contradict yourself. Me: Name one. You: I can't. You: It's a fact, not conjecture. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. Repeat from 2 for days. You: I used to almost be someone. I'm smarter than you. You should agree with me based on those two things. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FTR: ""nobody said rourke isn't ahead of schedule" and then you also said its been decided since post 1 that he is ahead of schedule...so which is it????" - No one is saying he isn't ahead of schedule means that everyone agrees he is ahead of schedule. They aren't opposite statements. You'd know that if you really were a smart guy. You: No one believes it, then you give two examples of other folks who believe it. Add in TSN for the trifecta. What you mean to say is Morning Big Blue forum members agree with you. I'd agree with that. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rourke was rusty last night. He under threw 2 deep balls that he would have completed easily preinjury. He was making the right reads quickly as he did before the injury, took some big hits, & fumbled. Not a great outing, but not a horrible one either. He didn't re-injure his foot that we know of, so no harm no foul.

I was expecting vanilla all night long so I was surprised how deep we went into our playbook.

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It doesn't say a new contract, that renders the CBA moot, is an option. If it did, you'd be right.

Why do you insist on arguing the studies & timelines again & again & again & again...? It's been decided since post 1 that Rourke is ahead of schedule. You're arguing a point that has already been decided over and over again. No one is saying Rourke isn't ahead of schedule. No one is saying he's back to normal. No one is saying he's 100%. No one is saying he's pain free. No one is even saying he'll last the whole quarter, let alone the whole game. It's a matter of opinion, not fact, that it's "a desperate rush job and frankly stupid". The fact is he's going to play before most other players. The rest is your conjecture & your conjecture isn't fact no matter how much you believe it is. That's the crux of this stupid argument. You don't like your opinion being challenged. You believe it's fact and expect it to be treated that way otherwise it's days and days of angry text that ends up in name calling, cuz that's your intellectual level.

What's ambiguous? The CBA says what options are available to draft picks in year 3 in black and white. Folks who are saying the word OPTION makes it ambiguous are the one's muddying the waters. We don't have a precedent because we haven't had a draft pick any where near Rourke's level since Russ Jackson and the CBA's been changed a lot of times since those days.

Even when I thank you you want to know what my deal is? FTR: I was honestly thanking you for providing info I didn't get from Google. Some players never play again. Most do, even at the NFL level. You continue to bang on about the timetable, when it was agreed in the first posts that Rourke is way ahead of the average. Only 3 NFL players got back on the field faster. You're arguing that coming back early means: "1) Rourke is not human 2)B.C has a secret sports medicine program for faster healing or 3) they rolling the dice and being less than ethical 4) Rourke is just a dumb tool and signed a waiver to play...and likely ruining any NFL shot in the spring" I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. @SpeedFlex27 Your timeframe doesn't mesh with the average timeframe for NFL player to get back on the field. It's likely the difference between a 65 year old arthritic foot and a 24 year old pro athletes foot.