JuranBoldenRules

Even worse than paying $1 million for his expertise is the horrible advice and direction he gave the CFLPA. That alone should have been enough for the players to seek new representation decades ago. I think Molstad saw the writing on the wall with the new executive and might have cashed in while he still could.

If he has Doug Brownish talent, why isn't he starting for the Ti-Cats? He was taking pretty regular snaps by the end of the season. Just returned to Canada at Labour Day from the NFL (a little heavy) and back surgery. They also have guys like Laurent and Bulcke, who he replaced. I don't think the Ticats would trade Gaydosh anyway.

I'd trade 11 and 15 for Gaydosh if that got it done. Then I'd give him a nice extension offer. The only risk is his injury history which indicates his body might be breaking down. Otherwise he's Doug Brown-esque in his talent.

So you don't think Goossen would start over a newly drafted rookie if Neufeld got injured?And I'm not convinced either of those 3 guys start their first season. If the Bombers drafted a guy like Chungh and he joined the team immediately, I find it hard to see Goossen starting over him at any position but centre if it comes down to the two of them. Put it this way, if the Bombers don't get at least one guy and probably more who can contribute this year out of this draft class, the 2015 team is in trouble.

Don't count on reaping many fruits from the 2015 draft this season. Usually takes these guys at least a year to start making an impact. One starter/guy who plays a lot of snaps on O or D and two more guys who fill out the bottom third of the roster is quite possible, barring the NFL taking that big time guy. For instance, if we draft a guy like Waud he's instantly the best Canadian on our DL and possibly on our defense as a whole. He'd be playing quite a bit. Overall I think the Bombers could go either way. Younger guys will be little more experienced, and they'll be more experienced together as a team including the coaching staff. We'll find out which half of the 2014 season was the fluke.

Could be kind of funny if he ever makes the starting lineup and they introduce him as being from a university that doesn't have a football program. I don't think this Reaves is much like the other Reaves' we know. Ryan Reaves is more like the old man, shorter (closer to 6 feet than 6 and a half feet like Jordan) and stocky. Played football against him growing up and he certainly was a load of a running back.

We'll see about the running back. Interesting to have another Maryland back in camp. Guy he split carries with at Maryland, Davin Meggett, was on our PR last season for a bit. Wonder if there's some connection there with McManus or Goveia. Some of these guys might not even make it to Winnipeg either. Probably going to get a long look at mini-camp.

Defenders can't "initiate or create contact that impedes or redirects an opponent beyond five yards" from the line of scrimmage. No room for interpretation there at all. None.

verVery reactionary decision making. Scoring is down for one season and full blown panic set in. Honestly! Full blown panic?! Am I missing something? Where are the huge groundbreaking changes? The biggest change is to the convert, which is what, 5% of the game?The change to how defensive backs can play against receivers is one that should have happened long ago, along with the refs putting the ball into play quicker. Everything else could be changed and any other year, no one would blink. Is everyone really that opposed to changing where converts are scrimmaged or is it something else? Because I'm not seeing it. It will still be CFL football. The converts will have a huge impact on the game even if the plays are a small portion of the game, pretty significant effect on the scoreboard which is what really matters. These changes will slow down the game significantly (tons of penalties on special teams and defenders), which is the opposite of the mandate handed to Glen Johnson and his committee. This is going to be a horrible season.

Equity to borrow money against to pay for the stadium. I think the effects of inflation are overstated. The costs to maintain/renovate the stadium when necessary will easily outpace inflation in the long-term. The governments will end up paying for the stadium in the end, and that's fine.

There's no reason to draft a QB unless you think he can transition to another position effectively. I'd bring in Yantz and give him a shot if he goes undrafted. I don't think he can play the game well enough from the pocket to be a pro QB, but that's how I feel about the majority of guys we see in training camp. There's a transition there because of the athletic ability of the guys playing defense and not many guys make it. He's a good enough athlete that he'll make it as a receiver if he doesn't as a QB. I'm not a fan of Bridge at all. Big arm, inaccurate, sucks in the pocket. I think he'll make the NFL as a tight end/H-Back anyways.

Just a hunch, but I don't believe that Calgary will use all their picks on guys who won't be playing in the CFL.

What do you think either would net in return?

Mulumba or Bilikudi could be traded too. Any news on results of drug tests at the combine yet?

Sure, but what relevance does that have to the defense that will be played this season and how Peach fits? Etcheverry's system causes defensive linemen, particularly ends, to pile up stats as he has LB's and DB's actively attacking the line of scrimmage taking blockers and gaps, giving the DL many more opportunities to make big plays. Think Stevie Baggs in Regina, an average CFL DE who basically did nothing special in the league apart from the season he played in that system.

Peach is the epitome of average. It's unlikely he'll get more sacks in a system that is going to rush 3 and 4 the majority of the time compared to one that rushed up to 7 often.

I'd be surprised if the Bombers picked Mateas or McEwan. They just drafted a guy who is a centre last year 2nd overall. Chungh or Groulx depending on his NFL chances would be the likely OL at 2nd overall. Lots of options though with some defensive players and receivers.

Archambault would be pretty low on my list, with the depth of players on both sides of the ball I wouldn't even look at him with one of our first three picks. He's either going to get a little leaner to play LB or convert to DE. It would be nice to get a contributor on each side of the ball out of this draft and a couple guys with upside. I think that is possible with the picks the Bombers have and the slightly underwhelming performances of some guys who have NFL interest.

Demski really set himself apart physically from the rest of the receivers in the agility drills, probably the most important of the physical tests for receivers. Richards and Durant both struggled.

• a kick for a single point, which now comes from the 12-yard line, would come instead from the 32-yard line. Gimmicky and unnecessary. • two point converts would be scrimmaged from the three-yard line, instead of the current five-yard line. Reasonable • during the pre-season, a convert worth three points when a team chooses to run or pass the ball over the goal line from the ten-yard-line. Outright stupid. • defensive player would be allowed to contact a receiver within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but would not allow either a defender or a receiver to create or initiate contact that impedes or redirects an opponent beyond five yards. Thought they wanted less flags. What exactly can a defender do to defend a pass? Why have defenders at all? • on a punt play, when the ball bounces on the ground and a five yard no yards penalty is called, the penalty will automatically be added to the end of the return, or from the point the ball was first touched by the return team, whichever is better. Currently, the receiving team has to choose between the five-yard penalty or the yards gained on the return. Reasonable. Better yet, make every no yards flag a 15 yard penalty. That will substantially cut the number of flags. • any time in the game the offence be allowed to signal to the referee that it doesn't want to substitute and it wants to use a tempo offence. The officials would then blow the play in immediately upon the ball and yardsticks being set for play. Reasonable, but needs to be well-defined in terms of what a "signal" is and how this rule will be applied. • on punts, prohibiting the five interior linemen on the kicking team from leaving the line of scrimmage until the ball is kicked. Trying too hard, going to cause more flags. Simple fix is making all no yards 15 yard penalties. • remove the ability of a coach to request a measurement, leaving it to the referee to measure when he is unsure if a first down has been made or not. Blatantly stupid. Would rather have more measurements, not less. Take the influence of the officials and the potential for bad calls that change outcomes out of the game, don't add to it. • offensive pass interference subject to video review. If defensive pass interference is, offensive pass interference should be too. Personally, I don't think the PI reviews added anything positive. • no longer giving the receiving team the option of demanding that a team kick again after one of its kick offs goes out of bounds. The receiving team will either take the ball where it went out of bounds, or at a point 30 yards in advance of where the ball was kicked off, whichever is better. Minor tweak, not sure this is really a problem.

Dumber every year, and they never seem to learn their lesson. Pretty much every significant change they've made in the past has been reversed within a few years. Make more rules that are difficult for officials who can't even apply the rules now correctly to attempt to apply. Seems like a great idea.

Groulx, Waud and Boyko are pretty solid bets to get NFL deals. Hard to see all of them landing in the first round of the CFL Draft. If Waud is not going to the NFL, he'd be a no brainer for us at 2nd overall.

Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. Maher is what passes for a liberal in the US, but he is still obnoxious. It is is possible to make your point without coming across as an arrogant twit. His stance on political correctness is Big C Conservatism. No offence, but this makes no sense whatsoever. The phrase "big C Conservative" or "big L Liberal" is referring to someone belonging to a specific political party. Small c conservative is someone who holds a conservative ideology, completely different than belonging to the party. Maher is a classical liberal, which is usually called libertarian now.

So you think the CBC should have outbid SportsNet for NHL broadcasting rights? SportsNet blew TSN out of the water with their bid. And I believe the CBC is mostly funded by taxpayer dollars. No. I believe they had an opportunity to hold onto the deal they had for Saturday games and a share of the playoffs with a reasonable offer. They took HNIC for granted and were stunned when the league balked at their offer excluding them. They were not a player for national rights. I haven't seen that reported anywhere, that CBC had an opportunity to keep HNIC rights. They did not. My friend is a mid-level management person at CBC and CBC was directed to drop NHL hockey as it conflicted with TSN and Rogers' interests. That's an interesting conspiracy theory, but is just that. At the end it came down to just Bell and Rogers because CBC made a low ball offer for the Saturday/playoff package. The bidding took place over the course of years. The NHL was very hesitant to exclude CBC due to how important the HNIC brand has been and were willing to work with them but were really left with little choice because of the terrible offer by comparison. It was a miscalculation by Lacroix and Orridge, the NHL called their bluff and sold that national package along with the rest of the national rights to Rogers. Widely reported in the national papers in the weeks following the announcement of the Rogers deal, especially the Globe and Mail and very similar to what happened with the CFL rights in 2007.

So you think the CBC should have outbid SportsNet for NHL broadcasting rights? SportsNet blew TSN out of the water with their bid. And I believe the CBC is mostly funded by taxpayer dollars. No. I believe they had an opportunity to hold onto the deal they had for Saturday games and a share of the playoffs with a reasonable offer. They took HNIC for granted and were stunned when the league balked at their offer excluding them. They were not a player for national rights.