17to85

yeah because 2 and outs and punting from your own end of the field are soooooo much better right?

The losses on D don't bother me so much, we've seen the d-line able to get pressure with the injuries already, gotta believe that wild can step in for parker, he might be young but he did acquit himself pretty well in preseason I think. Sears going in for Dunn should be fine, Sears is arguably one of the most talented dbs on the roster, getting him in is a plus. The offense on the other hand... man that's tough to miss that much experience in the receiving corps. I am holding out hope however based on one simple thing: http://www.cfl.ca/video/index/id/80453 check out the statistics for it too... lot of the same guys made plays in that one will be dressing for this one. http://www.cfl.ca/statistics/statsGame/id/10415

There's a lot more logic behind that opinion than anything you've been spewing.

one whole drive? That's the entire point with Pierce, he can do that once or twice a game then nothing. I'll take 4 or 5 lesser drives than the one big drive. I mentioned the INT games late so why bring that up? Banjo Bowl he got the ball at the end of the game and moved them into field goal position to extend the lead but the coach messed up the decision and the defense collapsed and let the riders march to win.... Could have very easily won that game with a smart decision from his coach and a backbone from the defense. You are of course free to think that Pierce is better than Elliott but there's just absolutely no basis in fact for such an opinion. Pierce hasn't been that kind of quarterback since the first half of 2011. Ever since then it's been a downhill trajectory for his career and only the blind or willfully ignorant are missing it.

The only times That the offense didn't move down the field were Labour day and in Calgary. Other than that, yes Elliott was quite good at moving the ball, much better than either Pierce or Brink have been at it at any time since halfway through 2011. The issues he had were in a couple games he threw interceptions once they got close to scoring range. IT wasn't a failure to move the ball, it was turning it over when they had a chance to put points on the board. An issue, but a far lesser issue in my mind than a complete inability to actually move the ball because at least if a guy is just throwing the ball in bad places at the wrong time you can work on that. Much easier to take away those few bad throws than trying to make a qb able to do anything right.

it's still a spot on a roster. I actually view it as insurance incase the 2nd guy in BC has to go in and isn't up to snuff. Lulay is still fairly young and seems durable so It's not likely that the Lions will need a replacement for him anytime soon so to me Wally wants a younger guy to groom in the 2nd position, Elliott at 3rd string is simply someone who can play if Lulay gets hurt and the 2nd man isn't able to do what needs to be done. He found a spot on a roster doesn't matter if it's 2nd or 3rd string, that's a lot more than many of the backup qbs who have come through the CFL can say after being cut by their first team. You can disregard it all you like, it doesn't make you correct.

don't forget that he was questionable for game one so there might be a linger thing... or there was that play in the hamilton game where he went up for a ball and landed awkwardly and took some time getting up, coulda tweaked something on that play.

the difficulty with that is this years defense is better than last years...

I called it a bloody mistake the second it happened, there's no inconsistencies there. I still like what Mack is doing overall, I just think he listened to his coach too much on the qb front and made a mistake as a result of it. Quite simply there is no one in the CFL who has shown they know qbs as well as Wally Buono over the past 20 years.

OR there's a third option.... you're completely clueless. Wally Buono has had by far the most success finding qbs who can play in this league and he found a spot on his roster for Elliott. He also recognized that sticking with Pierce is a mistake as well. I'll take his opinion on qbs thanks. He think Elliott is worth a roster spot that says more than what any other GM thinks. I mean Goltz has never started a game and only thrown like 14 passes in his career, and Hall has never thrown any. Until they prove something Elliott is a better option. And given how terrible Pierce has been he's not a better option either.

Think Goltz or Pierce woulda been picked up by anyone? The best QB evaluator in the CFL found room on his roster for Elliott so I'm not exactly sure what your point is... this is the same guy by the way who cut ties with Buck Pierce a few years back mind you...

sucker.

oh who's that? the guy who's thrown what? 14 passes in his career? Or the guy who has thrown none? Surely you don't mean pierce, cause you go up a little bit you'll see some stats that indicate he's as much of a turnover machine as elliott ever was.

not until we get a better option at the position.

yeah considering he's been less effective I don't mind Pierce going on, it's really the fact that there's no real veterans in there that hurts the most. In terms of the physical abilities they have I think all of the receivers that will play can do the job, but there's no substitute for someone who has been there and done that before.

I am less sure that that was a mistake, to me the mistake was hitching the offense so totally and completely to Buck Pierce. They were afraid to let him play his way so the re-tooled the offense to try and kepe him upright and it turns out PIerce can't play that style of offense. It was a mistake from square one. If you don't believe you qb can stay healthy playing the way he plays well you have to be sure he can adapt to a different style, clearly he can not. Should have stuck with the qb who excelled at times with Crowtons offense.

Never fear, Jay Detain will save the day!

which is bullshit logic. Without superhuman efforts on defense it was a blowout, you can't refuse to sit a struggling qb just because the defense is really really good. Couple first downs in the third quarter maybe the bombers win that game, but no the offense disappeared and the defense as always happens, got worn down and the team lost. We have seen that so many times in the last 3 seasons now.

I agree that they all have potential, but there's not a hell of a lot of experience out there, and that is cause for some concern.

I can remember one, when he scrambled and threw to Kohlert late against the als... I'm sure there are a few more, but I can remember a hell of a lot more times he was utterly ineffective at moving and I am sure that there are more of those that I don't remember too. Something about the sun shining on a dogs ass every now and then. That is pretty much Pierce at qb this season.

I think that if you were expecting the Argos to not have a defense in place that would account for a qb scrambling that you are very very naive.

But in comparison to pierce who has also been not nearly accurate enough... and in addition Pierce hasn't been able to escape pressure or run either. So how would it be worse? That's the point here. Pierce has been so bad in the first 3 games the whole "it might get worse" argument is ludicrous.

yeah but the argos aren't going to show up wearing pink...

So Anderson Etienne and Kohlert at SB and Pierce and Denmark at WR? Yikes.

He's a guy who really needs to step up or in my mind he's expansion draft fodder.