TBURGESS

I was talking about the short week, the travel, no Burnham, Ottawa's week off to prepare, Powell back... I thought the PI against the Lions in the end zone on 2 point conversion number 2 was a questionable call. Which 3 are you talking about?

Pretty much everything was against BC and they found a way to win. Rourke had his worst game of the year. Two picks and a fumble. Most of Ottawa's points came off those mistakes. I'm very much looking forward to next week's game.

We barely beat the 6th ranked team and they should have won at least one of the games. We won because of their mistakes in the first game, not because of our great play. You say that's because the Redblacks are a good team this year, not that we didn't play well or that we're not as dominant as we were last year. Tonight, we'll learn more about both the Lions and the Redblacks. Are the Redblacks the 0-3 team that I think they are or do they beat the Lions to prove they are a good team that just got beat by a better Bomber team? The Redblacks have everything on their side. A bye week to prepare. The Lions are on a short week, without Burn-em, playing on the road for the first time. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

How 'bout there's a problem with the Keyboard to Chair Interface?

I've picked the Bombers to win every game this year and almost all games last year. I'm not sure why you call that is 'the sky is falling'. This year when I said it doesn't matter how we get wins as long as we get wins, some ID 10 T said that's what happens when you leave your computer unlocked. I haven't complained about any signings or trades or players we've lost, but you still paint me with the same brush as a few years back when we weren't dominant and folks were saying we were, even tho the facts weren't on their side. We're in a great run right now. Dominant for a year + a playoff run. Happy now? You're giving your "what if" scenario's equal if not more credence than actual facts, which is silly, but extrapolating your 'what ifs' and calling that logic is hilarious. Ottawa's record is 0-2, good enough for 6th in the power rankings. They didn't beat us back to back, but if they did, I'd certainly think they are a better team than I think they are right now. If they end up above .500 I'll have been wrong about how good they are this year after two games, but that doesn't change the fact that they are 0-2 at this point in the season. Either of us could be dead wrong about the Redblacks. So what?

It's just the same old lame joke told for the thousandth time by folks who have nothing new to say.

James Butler

The reality is that Ottawa is an 0-2 team, they aren't going unbeaten for the rest of the year & I didn't call them a garbage team. FTR: My guess is they're a less than .500 team and that most of their wins will be against eastern teams.

Et tu Mikey? I thought you were better than that. No, I didn't say any of that. No, it's not funny. No, you're not making a point. Neither BC nor us has played a top tier team. The two teams we've played have zero wins between them. The two teams BC's played have 1 win between them. We squeaked by Ottawa twice, a big part is the redblacks mistakes rather than our great play. We beat Hamilton convincingly by a pair of TD's. BC's hugely outplayed their competition. They even scored 24 points in the second half of the Toronto game when they were missing Burn-em and Butler. Others: As for the Flutie comparison, note the "if statement". 17's right, Rourke will have to do it consistently for at least a season before the "if statement" is true. If that happens, he'll be in the NFL as soon as his current contract is over. Will Rourke become the next Flutie? Only time will tell, but he's off to a great start. I love watching the best teams battle and that's what I'm expecting/hoping for next week.

BC's looked crazy good so far. #1 offence and #1 defence. Rourke's numbers are off the charts. Teams have film on Rourke from last year, but he looks like a different QB this year. If he keeps this up, he's in Flutie territory. BC destroyed Edmonton who looked way better against both Calgary and Regina. BC also destroyed Toronto who barely beat Montreal. I'm looking forward to our game against them in a couple of weeks. It'll really show who is the best in the west.

Toronto doesn't worry me. It's BC on a short week with a long travel that does.

I agree that should have been called too.

Watch it again. It was a valid call that could have impacted the game. Even when I try not to get into arguments folks try to pull me into them.

Rein-dolt would be great on the panel. He knows the game and says what he thinks. He's also a nice guy when you sit down and talk with him.

Wuss! I was there when it rained so hard that their were waterfalls running down the stands. They stopped the game. The water flooded the field and the sidelines. Rick House got tackled after they started back up again and he almost drowned. Pegger's shouldn't let the weather keep them from seeing the Bombers in person.

Maybe Suitor is right. Dan Clark is the glue that holds that OL together.

Kadeem Carey - I hope he gets more than 2 carries this week.

In MOS speak that means his legs are still attached to his body.

TSN - Please do the interviews at half time. Signed 99% of CFL fans.

Are the redblacks that much better or are we that much worse? Two weeks in a row we stuff a 3rd down gamble in the 4th and win a game we probably shouldn't have. Two weeks in a row we expected to win while the redblacks hoped to win. We're 2-0 and that's really what matters.

I like intentional grounding. Nice. Not written is the definition of not a rule. There's a group of folks who argue all the time, including Booch. It's not just me, but a certain group loves to complain about me arguing with them. Talk about lack of self awareness. Every hit is both intentional and targeted. What folks are really saying is targeting the head or neck. Guess what? According to the rules if you hit the head or neck, you get a penalty, targeted or not, intentional or not. Why would would you even need/want to figure out intent? UR, intent or not, is a 15 yard penalty anyway. 'Intent' for a fine after the fact. Sure. Why not? You get a chance to see the hit in multiple angles and in slow motion. Might be why players get fines for hits that aren't penalties in game. Although in this case it was the blow to the head that was missed in game. Rules should be binary. On side or off side. In or out. Within 5 yards or not. Hit the head/neck or not.

You're arguing something that can't be proven one way or the other. I'm arguing the rule and you admit it's not a rule then complain that I'm the one who is arguing and twisat'ing whatever that is. You're the one who keeps bringing intent and targeting up. Leave it alone and we'll have nothing to argue about. Keep bringing it up, and I'll keep replying. As usual the arguing is up to you.

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

Looks like I didn't read far enough. I stopped at f when g was the answer. Based on this information, I change my opinion. It was a UR penalty. It has nothing to do with intent.