Noeller

What more can you ask than that they try as hard as they can?

It's like people think the Bombers are actively trying to lose...

I'm thinking it had more to do with Willy being a good QB and finding people to throw to then it was MB offensive schemes. This is a fair statement.......and I'm by no means a MB supporter....

No, there's no question...people are just too caught up in Brohm/Marve/Nichols to remember, but MBs offence with Drew Willy was really good. Now, you can say that maybe, with Willy and a better offence, they'd be world beaters.....but my point is only that MBs offence *DID* look really good with DW running it.

But yet, the offence looked just fine with Drew Willy.........

Again, it's all in the wording......everyone is right on this one......

Never like seeing another guy lose his ability to earn a living, but man this looks so good on Austin...

Here's the interesting wording: "had no contact with University of Guelph"........but the original report stated that it was the "team boosters" who reached out to him about the gig. Alumni, or whatever. But not the school itself.

Herp Derp bETTeR than OGOOf11! Rabble!

This is the best.....Jags is the honey badger of the NHL. Just doesn't give a ****. Rich, famous, bangin' hot 18 year olds.....#ToughLife

that rebel blogger post is straight up funny.....had to be satire. Only explanation.

*concerned*

For the first time, I'm worried about MOS......

Klefbom is gonna be a good one. That's a really good AAV for 7 years...

son of a *****......

Good Montreal D but should be a winnable game for us with any kind of consistency on O.

There's enough "ABC" or "ABH" voters out there that I think we'll see change, but I'm not sure there's enough people scared enough to vote NDP. They might just stay in the safe middle ground and vote in a Lib minority for the sake of change, but, y'know, not TOO much change... Just a gut feeling anyhow.

I would not be the least bit surprised to see a Grit minority...

..and they've been trying to make the case that Trudeau is too young, because he looks about 20 years younger than both Harper and Mulcair. That's why Harper's been referring to him strictly as "Justin", and not "Mr Trudeau"...they want to make him out to be a kid, like Bieber.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-emerges-as-leader-with-new-economic-vision-for-canada/article26417694/ While it was at times hard to find the economic meat in this muddled sandwich of political finger-pointing and out-shouting, the Liberal Leader gave by far the most convincing case yet for his road map for the Canadian economy of the future. First, though, he and his two counterparts, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, had to get their dreary, intelligence-insulting political games out of the way. All of the leaders were guilty, early and often, of ignoring the moderator’s questions in order to pound away at their rehearsed talking points and misleading scare tactics. They all twisted the facts about the other parties’ platforms in order to score points at the expense of their opponents. Thank heavens for the second half of the debate, when the moderator engaged the leaders in a more free-form discussion and insisted they actually answer some direct questions. And this is when Mr. Trudeau seemed to warm up – both to the audience and to his policies. For Mr. Trudeau, especially, the most important goal tonight was not so much to sell his economic plan, but to sell himself as the man who can actually execute it. Canadians seem to have come around surprisingly quickly to his bold, even risky proposal to run modest short-term deficits in order to invest big on infrastructure. But polls show that despite liking the plan, they don’t have a lot of faith that Mr. Trudeau has the skill, smarts and experience to manage the economy. Was he convincing? Not always. But he did better than his two opponents in explaining the rationale behind his policies. He presented himself as the only man of the three with something meaningful to offer. And he looked like he knew what he was talking about. So did Mr. Harper. But the role he chose was to be the guy who has seen it all and done it all, and thus should be trusted to just keep on doing it. He seemed content to be the guy devoid of new ideas. An election ago, Mr. Harper won a majority government on economic pledges that voters could sink their teeth into: He was going to cut taxes and balance the budget. Well, done and done. So what was the point? Um, to promise to keep the tax cuts and keep the budget balanced. If we imagined that these were means to an end, that once achieved there would be a grand plan cashing in the dividend from all that hard work, we were wrong. If Mr. Harper has anything more to offer beyond his reputation and his record, he wasn’t eager to talk about it. Mr. Mulcair’s biggest contribution looks to be to increase the corporate taxes that Mr. Harper has cut. His best argument? Mr. Harper’s tax cuts didn’t save manufacturing jobs, big business should pay its “fair share” – and at any rate, it won’t be so bad. We know there’s a philosophy behind Mr. Mulcair’s corporate tax policy. Did he explain it? Not adequately – not even when he was directly asked. Nor did he adequately explain the economic value of his national affordable childcare proposal, other than to assure us that it, too, can be done with a balanced budget. Beyond the predictable and tedious three-way finger-wagging about balanced budgets and the parties’ varying willingness and competence to achieve them, there was a disappointing lack of economic substance for a 90-minute debate that was entirely about the economy. The three leaders had an opportunity to address the country’s debt-bloated housing market, and the risk it poses to the country’s economic stability. All three chose instead to deliver motherhood-and-apple-pie platitudes about having a secure roof over your head. Trade? It didn’t even come up until the final five minutes of the debate. For a trade-intensive economy like Canada’s, the lack of discussion on the trade file was, frankly, mind-boggling. The three leaders were their most animated and engaged in each other, by far, in discussing immigration policy. But the discussion about the economic role of immigration in Canada’s future growth as its population ages was utterly lost in an argument about refugees and security issues. Nevertheless, the three distinguished themselves from each other on the economy Thursday. Mr. Mulcair came off as less scary on the economy than the NDP is often painted to be. Mr. Harper defined himself as the safe choice on the path that, while not so great, also hasn’t been so awful. But whether you like it or not, only Mr. Trudeau offered voters a vision of something new.

Longo had a couple bad plays early but got better as the game went. Interested to see how he looks vs Montreal on Sunday...

If the league was then as it is now, in terms of opportunity, Chris Walbys career in the CFL would've been extremely short, if anything at all...

Sorry, I don't buy that logic. The NFL has already passed on them the first time and in a lot of cases their sham degree from "Southern Pinestick A&M" is not going to lead to many employment opportunities in the real world that pay as well as a job in the CFL.. I can't stand this bias against athletes. Find one guy on our roster that is from a school you've never heard of. My brother coaches at the University/National level and academic standing (GPA and attendance) is a high priority for his athletes. That is, unacceptable academic standing means no play (no matter who you are) until it's brought up to the standard set by the University regardless of sport (I believe its around 3.00 GPA and 80% attendance rate). So I think the more practical question, for me at least is, where do American Universities sit with this when it comes to football play and academic standing with their student athletes? My educated guess would be it varies from University to University. That's all well and good, but a lot of the basketball players at BU when I was there were dumber than a sack of hammers, and mostly they took classes such as shoe tying 101 and walking and chewing bubble gum 305. A lot of universities like to claim that they have high academic standards, and I'm sure some do, but there's also a lot of fluff involved in getting the athletes through those requirements too. A required course if you want to leave university with an STD. Not familiar with this particular degree ... Knew some guys who majored in it at Brandon U back in 1998.....classes held daily on the 3rd floor of FLora Cowan Dorm.....

This is asinine.......all of it.....

Both the Montreal tour stop and meeting up with Bombers while there, both posted yesterday.... ...But yes....indeed........