TBURGESS

You can't line Streveler up in the HB spot unless you remove the other QB. It's a penalty. Article 4 — Designated Quarterback Prior to the game, a team is required to designate three players who shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the Quarterback position exclusively. Not more than one such player may be in the game at any time and none of the three can enter the game as a member of Team B. PENALTY: L25 PLS DR or L25 PBD or option. NOTE: For the purposes of this Article 4, the duties of the Quarterback position may include punting, place kicking and kicking off. If a team designates three Quarterbacks for a game, the player designated as the third Quarterback shall not be eligible for kicking duties. NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays.

Of course I get it. You're making something up and calling it a fact. Simply believing something is true doesn't make it a fact. Expecting that I'll react in a certain way is just a theory and a bad one at that.

Another guy who doesn't understand what a theory and a fact are. 😂

This post proves you actually don't know he difference between fact and a theory. 🤣

The old 1 team he beat was good theory. 😂

Folks are pretending that we destroyed the Stamps for the whole game. Truth of the matter is that they won the first half and we owned them in the 2nd half. The 70 yard TD in the 4th destroyed their confidence. After that BLM threw 2 picks and they turned the ball over on downs. We needed the combo of Collaros/Streveler to beat them. Either one alone or Nichols/Streveler wouldn't have done the job. We needed the big throws and the big runs. Neither QB by themselves could provide both. I'm not suggesting we sign Collaros next year. In fact, I didn't want us to trade for him in the first place because of his health. It's turned out great so far, but I'm still worried about a big hit taking him out yet again. Collaros has been both good and lucky in Bomber Blue. Great TD throws and 4 balls that should have been picked, but weren't. He's moved the pocket well, something that Nichols can't do, and that's been the reason for some of his biggest plays. He's only played 1 and 3/4 games so far. Breaks will even out over the long run, but we're in the playoffs so the long run doesn't exist.

Collaros throws have more zip on them. He throws a better medium and a better deep ball. He's way more mobile than Nichols. There's no way Nichols even throws the ball to Adams in the last season game, let alone gets it there accurately. Collaros doesn't rely on the Harris dump pass anywhere near as often as Nichols does which makes defences have to cover everyone. Collaros did it against Calgary twice, one of which was a playoff game. Nichols mostly played against the bottom 3 teams in the league. Stats aren't going to tell the story because both QB's played in the PLAP offence.

Better question is are the Bombers still pretending that Nichols is a bonafide QB? Collaros has outplayed him in both games so far.

What a fine w(h)ine. 3 completely positive points and 1 remark about the weather being on our side (It was and everyone knows it), and I get 2 pages of folks arguing with me for arguments sake. No, we didn't win only cuz the other team played badly and I never said we did, but If you think BLM played well this week or last week against the Lions then I can't help you. FTR: I was in the crowd and on the field after the last Bomber Grey Cup win. I was very happy indeed. I expect I'll be just as happy when we finally do it again.

Almost as annoying as not knowing how to do multiple quotes in a single post. 😉 (Hint: It's the + sign)

If you like that, wait until you see a GC win live.

His pocket broke down so he had 2 choices. Eat the ball and give up 2 points or throw the ball. He made the right choice, but didn't get the ball past the LOS. Pissed him off? Sure. Broke his spirit? LOL

That intentional grounding didn't break BLM's spirit. It was just 1 play where he tried to throw the ball away and didn't get it past the LOS.

This year, after the injury, BLM often throws wobbly rainbows. Jefferson forced a couple of bad throws, but mostly it was BLM making bad decisions and bad throws. QB's aren't going to win throwing into triple coverage and BLM is no exception. The Stamps recievers dropped a few easily catchable balls, not cuz they heard footsteps or were worried about being hit. It's because the Stamps drop more catchable balls than most teams and because the cold made it harder to catch the ball in the first place. The DB's played well. Tightest coverage I've seen this year. That doesn't mean that the Stamps receivers didn't drop catchable balls.

You see what you want to see. BLM was off for the 2nd week in a row, no matter what the talking heads or Bomber fans say. Our defence didn't force bad throws any more than BC's did last week. Our defence didn't force the drops either. Without the drops the Stamps stay on the field and the rushing numbers go up. Number of carries isn't the number you need to look at anyway. Stamps don't have anyone in the top 10 rushing. We've got both Harris and Streveler. Calgary is a pass first offence. Jackson had 246 yards rushing all year. That's 2 or 3 games for Harris/Streveler.

Collaros > Nichols. That being said, I don't want either next year even if we win the cup this year.

Sounds to me like we get Regina without their starting QB in Regina again. Worked pretty good last year.

Those are some good reasons to give kudos to Hall this week. PLAP coaches the offence.

Adams - Only 2 catches but the first one got us out of trouble and the second one broke the Stamps back. Streveler - Doubt he can walk today, but that was one gutsy performance DB's - Tight coverage for maybe the first time this year. Fought for every ball and came away with some of them. HH - Mother Nature, the great equalizer that forced the Stamps to run the ball, which they don't do well and added to their dropsie problems. We live to fight another day. Go Bombers!

As I understand it, most coaches have a clause in their contracts that say they get paid less by the original team if they get a new job. More like a 'top up' number to pay the difference between the original contract and their new contract with their new team. That would significantly reduce the cap hit.

Just goes to show how popular opinions can be wrong. Wisdom of the crowd is how you get Boaty McBoatface.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it as a fact and FTR, my opinion isn't always contrary to popular opinion.

BS. I don't care what the popular opinion is. I don't wait until it's established to form my opinion.

I wonder if Claybrooks has a clause in his contract like Campbell did where the club is on the hook for significantly less salary if he gets another job next year?

IMO the league should make a rule one way or the other but, they did follow the rules as they currently are. There is no rule that says they have to vote for a player who tested positive for PED's and there's no rule that says they can't vote for a player who tested positive for PED's.