TBURGESS

I was a big Hefney fan when he played for us. That has nothing to do with choosing to sell drugs or using them for that matter and yes.. you and many others are making excuses for him. Popularity, who brought it in, who profits from it and how much over the limit he sold aren't the issues. Legality is the issue. Hefney knew it was illegal and should have known that he could get 9 years or more for selling cocaine. He did it anyway. That's on him.

Why does it matter how much money he made or didn't make? Dude chose to sell drugs. Got caught. Will do his time. Similar story daily in the US. The only reason we're hearing about it is because he played football in the CFL.

Agree to disagree. We did pass and got a PI on it in the last set of downs. I didn't like the run up the gut but, a pick or a sack gives them the ball closer to our end zone. An incomplete pass stops the clock without them using a time out. I'm not looking at the stats for the whole game or for the first half. I'm saying that expecting your defence to stop the other team from getting a TD and a convert, with a minute on the clock from 90+ yards away is the right call.

Losing isn't proof that the call was wrong. It's proof that the defence didn't do their job. Calling a time out when you want to drain the clock is the opposite of what MOS should do. The Argo game and the Als game were the same. Big leads lost. The LDC was just a walk off FG after a drive, not a complete collapse. This wasn't a normal loss. It was the first time in Bomber history that we lost a game when we were up by 24 points. Worst collapse ever. That's what pisses me off. It shouldn't have happened.

If Medlock kicks the 53 yarder, the last drive is irrelevant. If MOS decides to pin Montreal deep instead of going for the 53 yarder, the last drive is likely irrelevant. If the defence doesn't allow a 60 yard pass and run play in the last minute, the last drive is irrelevant. I'm saying that in the situation we were in, MOS made the right call to run. I'd have run a sweep to burn a few more seconds and to get outside the box, but that's the only change I'd have made to the call.

The offence puts up 428 yards, 31 points, and wins TOP by 5 minutes. The defence gives up 528 yards, a 60 yard pass and run in the last minute of the game and a TD with seconds left on the clock. Fans blame the offence for not getting 1 more first down to seal the win. I'm not a MOS fan, but he was right. Run the ball. Keep the clock running. Kick deep. Rely on your defence to stop Montreal from scoring a TD and a convert to win the game with just over a minute left from 90ish yards away.

We're 4-4 in our last 8. We win at home and lose on the road. Gotta get a home playoff game. Hopefully 1st in the west.

OMG! What next? Receivers saying they're open all the time? LOL.

Can't read eh? What a moroon

Streveler's throwing for almost as many yards as Nichols was AND he's moving the sticks with his legs, which Nichols just can't do. Streveler has upside. Nichols doesn't.

That would be 1962 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Winnipeg_Blue_Bombers_seasons

It's been a very long time since were ended the season first in the West (1972), so just reaching that mark is a very good thing. Considering the way we've played this year, it should be our expectation to finish first in the west, win the playoff game and get to the Grey Cup. Anything less than that would be a major disappointment IMO.

Why would Ottawa pay a 1st rounder for Nichols when he'll be a FA?

Streveler - Getting better every game Augustine - Not going to make anyone forget about Harris, but give the kid his due Grant - That TD broke the Riders back HH - PLAP managed to keep the offence going without Harris, Nichols, Whitehead and Demski.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Streveler is looking good against good defences. Playing Edmonton and Regina is no where near as easy as playing BC and Toronto. This is what I hoped for from Streveler. He's been getting better each week as he gains experience. I think he's almost as good as Nichols already and has a long way to go to reach his peak.

Nah... that was on purpose.

If Remple lands on his ass or his back, he's back on the field the next time he's needed. Bad luck that he hit his head on the field.

IF Nichols is done for the year, it wouldn't hurt at all to announce it. Other teams aren't going to prepare to play Nichols unless/until he comes off of the 6 game anyway.

The defence kept us in the game in the first quarter and lost us the game in the last drive.

True. My point is that it doesn't matter how we get the yards as long as we get them.

Nichols and Streveler are putting up around the same number of total yards per game, they just do it in different ways.

The biggest knock on Streveler is that he's inexperienced. I for one am glad he's getting some this year. He's way ahead of schedule in his QB maturation IMO. These games will go a long way towards knowing if he's a guy you can build a team around or not. I think you can.

And's matter. There are several letters in Article 4 with and's in them. The first one is: a. Piling by a player who, in an unnecessarily rough manner, falls upon the ball carrier after the play has been terminated. Any player in possession of the ball, who falls to the ground without contact and is not attempting to advance the ball, may only be touched down and may not be contacted in any other manner... If the 'and' doesn't matter then there is no reason to add the is not attempting to advance the ball. The and changes the meaning from it's always UR to hit a player who is down to it's UR to hit a player and not trying to advance the ball. If 'and' means something in case a, it means something in case h. If the rule is supposed to mean this or that or the other thing, then they'd use OR instead of AND. They could also change it to multiple cases like: h. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down i. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they they are in a vulnerable position j. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self That would match with g. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head including the long snapper on kicks from scrimmage and convert attempts which is another case that specifically mentions long snappers. How to you even define what a vulnerable position and what unable to protect them self, means if it's not attached to having their head down?

It isn't how many steps, so what is it? Can't hit the snapper at all? Nope, that's not the rule. Can't hit him for x seconds? Nope, that's not the rule. Leave them alone until they are completely set up and waiting to block? Nope, that's not the rule either. The rule is "Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down and they are in a vulnerable position and unable to protect them self". Head wasn't down, so the and's don't matter. If they were or's then you'd have a good point. Even if the head is up for a 'split second', it's still up. It's not UR just cuz a player de-cleats another player or just cuz a player gets hurt. If you watched the other games this weekend you saw special teams players getting blown up without any penalties. TSN included some in their highlight package going into the second halfs. It doesn't matter if a Bomber, Stamp, Rider or any other teams player got hit that way and it doesn't matter which team hit them. The penalty or lack there of, is the same.

I'm not twisting anything. He isn't being hit in the first 2 steps. Maybe not the 3rd. Don't like my posts? Block me, but for dogs sake stop whining about them.