TBURGESS

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.

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's not my reading comprehension that needs work. @SpeedFlex27 It's not ambiguous & I'm not muddying the waters. Rourke's out is the NFL, and I agree with GCn20, he'll get his shot next year. I doubt he comes back to the CFL next year and if/when he does, he'll get paid like the starting QB he is.

Thanks for the inside info on Rourke's surgery. Better than Google gave me.

Something says they have to exercise the option. It's called the CBA & says: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. But wait, there's more, the CBA also says: All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid. According to the CBA, drafted players must follow the salary grid & sign a 2+1 contract & their 3rd year is not more than 10% more than the 2nd year. According to the fans on this site, no they don't, the club can tear up that contract and offer them something different in the third year cuz it's their option, even though it explicitly stated in the CBA what they have to do. According to Naylor?/TSN?/Twitter? (I can't remember where I heard/read it) BC asked the CFL for a exemption for Rourke's contract. They wouldn't need an exemption if they could just tear up the contract and offer a new one. I'm done arguing this one. Flame away folks. You know you want to.

Congrats! You've shown, using actual data, that Rourke is way ahead of schedule, something that no one was questioning in the first place. Of 28 players (11 offensive, 17 defensive) who suffered Lisfranc injuries between 2000 and 2010, two never returned to the NFL. The median time to return was 11.1 months from the time of injury, and three players returned in less than three months. If the bones are where they are supposed to be treatment in a non-walking cast for 6 weeks may be enough. Najee Harris suffered lisfranc injury during preseason and was ready to go 4 weeks later, and he's a RB. It's not an impossible timeline, but it's certainly not the norm. I'm no Dr., just a guy with Google, who doesn't pretend that I know more than the Dr's. From my googling: There are different levels of Linsfranc surgery. Ligaments can be stretched, partially or fully torn to removing cartilage, bone & fusing joint(s) in the foot. Google doesn't help with which level of surgery Rourke had, but they did call it a Linsfran sprain, which likely means it wasn't the worst case scenario. Maybe they opened him up and the bones were still where they were supposed to be. If you know more than google, please let me know. Only an ID10T would conclude that being ahead of schedule means that Rourke isn't human or that BC has a secret program for faster healing or that or the Dr's are being less than ethical or that Rourke is a dumb tool giving up his chance at the NFL in the spring or that the medical team is obviously skirting the healing issue. It most likely means that Rourke's not fully healed & is willing to play through the pain. I don't think anyone expects a 100% Rourke this year. I certainly don't. The question becomes what kind of harm can he do coming back before he's fully healed? He could re-injure and start recovery over again, he could re-injure and have a longer recovery time, or he might not re-injure it at all. The team and Rourke must think that the the chances of re-injuring it in a quarter of football this week is low enough to let him play. I hope they're right.

You're on the "it's OK to gamble with an old guy, but not a young guy" side. I disagree. A gamble is a gamble. Some work out. Some don't. Nope, not even close. Just cuz several people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong.

I can be & have been swayed by facts.

These two clauses spell out what teams can do in the option year. If teams could simply not pick up the option, why would the CBA say you have to follow the salary grid & base salary not to exceed more than 10% of the 2nd year salary?

It doesn't say that you can tear up the contract and offer a new one and I would think that the Lions would have already done that if they could. Rourke has certainly earned a bigger contract than $65K. As I read it, 3rd year salary is $65,000+$6500(10% of 65K)+$7500(Housing)+$7500(Snaps) = $86,500. Rourke should be way more than that and if there's a way for the Lions to do it, I'm sure they will.

The argument is that the BC organization looks really bad for bringing Rourke back 'early' & if we do the same thing, obviously with a different player, we don't look bad. It's not that Rourke is ahead of schedule, because that's a fact. No context needed. Is it OK to bring back a player who thinks he's ready and who gets the Dr's OK even if he doesn't last the game? I say yes and it doesn't matter the player or the injury or how far ahead of the curve he is or the team the brings him back. @Brandonevery player who steps on the field can get hurt any play they are in. That's a statement of fact, not an argument for or against bringing Rourke or Ellingson back. @bearpantsAll the things you talk about are taken into consideration before allowing the player to get back on the field. It doesn't matter if the player is a Bomber or a Lion, a young guy or an old guy, a receiver or a QB, a guy whose going to play 10 snaps or one who will play a quarter. For those who still don't get it: Teams that bring a player back before they are expected to be back do it with the best information that they have, full risk assessment, the Dr's & the players OK. When it doesn't work out, it doesn't make the organization look bad & it doesn't mean that the organization was pressuring the player. Is possible that the org did pressure them, but the simple fact that they played doesn't mean that a true statement.

1st Year 2nd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 This is the same thing that I posted before with the Option year info highlighted this time.

Saying I wouldn't take BC lightly doesn't mean I expect them to win this week. In fact, I did take the Bombers.

If you're reading all the posts you already know that can't happen next year.

I don't think the drop off is as big as you think it is. We won 5 of the 6 "coulda gone either way" games this year. If some had gone the other way, we might be in 2nd or 3rd.

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try. If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

BC's a good team who lost their starting Phenom QB in the middle of the season and still managed to make it to 2nd place overall. They're good enough that VAJ has a winning percentage at QB. Their offence is 2nd in points for, 2 ahead of us & number 1 in net offence, despite losing Rourke. Their defence is 2nd in points allowed, 20 behind us & number 1 in picks. The only team a Rourke led Lions, lost to was the Bombers. They beat Calgary twice, once with Rourke and once with VAJ. I wouldn't take them lightly.

If Rourke gets hurt again his season is over. If he doesn't play, his season is over. Same outcome. The risk is IF getting hurt again costs him next season or an NFL shot. @GCn20 I don't agree that both organizations look bad. I don't think either of them look bad.

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play. Either both organizations look bad or neither do. I take the neither side on this one.

I'm saying when the Bombers do it, it's called bad luck if the player gets hurt, but if BC does it, it's what he deserves, an IToldyaSo moment, and the entire organization looks really bad. I'm scoffing at the double standard, not arguing that it's a good idea. We don't know that the Lions are rushing him back, but that's what folks around here are calling it. We had one poster argue that the Lions were rushing him, and arguing that the Dr's didn't give him the go ahead to to throw in practice, which means he's pushing himself, not that the team is pushing him. FTR: Rourke threw during the time that cameras are allowed, not behind closed doors, so the Dr's and team absolutely knew it was going to happen and gave him the go ahead. The Dr's, who know way more than we do, have given Rourke the go ahead. The team, who have everything to lose if Rourke gets re-injured, have given Rourke the go ahead. Rourke, who would lose an NFL shot next year if he gets hurt again, is ready to at least give it a try. It adds interest to a nothing game this week.

All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below: “A” Grid – 1st or 2nd round C.F.L. Draft Choice “B” Grid – 3rd or 4th round C.F.L. Draft Choice 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $5,000 $5,000 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500