Atomic

That was about -20 to -25 with the windchill. Maybe got a little colder as the game went on.

Imagine that, you're not a fan of an evaluation that basically tears apart your entire bias towards Marve. And this number you came up with? What is the point of that? It honestly means nothing. It means that Marve is effective at moving the offense. No. It doesn't. In your mind, maybe. In reality, not even close to what it means. It is a means of measuring effectiveness, absolutely. The more yardage a QB can muster, the better he stands a chance at winning the game. Look at the sample size. Your stats are meaningless and totally non-predictive. I'm all for breaking down stats and looking at them, I think it's fun, but trying to draw the broad conclusions that you are is just foolish. You're pointing at a comparison of 12 plays per QB and trying to tell everyone it means something. It doesn't.

First off, this is not an evaluation, merely a statistical breakdown of the offensive drives. I would advise against putting too much faith in any of these numbers. There are a lot of factors to consider, such as supporting cast, opposing defence, and playcalling. I definitely wouldn't evaluate the effectiveness of a QB based on my numbers or yours. I just thought it would be interesting to look at. Misleading numbers are misleading, that's all I'm saying. I hope you realize that yours are just as misleading, that's all I'm saying.

Thanks, good contribution, the site would die without you.

It's called the Golf dome. Hello.. Well then good thing they're wearing helmets because I'm usually ripping drives around the time they'd be holding practices.

Yeah but the other guys - Dinwiddie, Brink, Hall, etc. - couldn't even do that much.

First off, this is not an evaluation, merely a statistical breakdown of the offensive drives. I would advise against putting too much faith in any of these numbers. There are a lot of factors to consider, such as supporting cast, opposing defence, and playcalling. I definitely wouldn't evaluate the effectiveness of a QB based on my numbers or yours. I just thought it would be interesting to look at.

Training camp in May could be dicey for some teams. Recall we had snowfall on may long.

Statistical look at the individual drives as led by the 3 backup QBs (Numbers don't include Portis' last "drive", which was essentially killing the clock): Starting point -- Result -- Total drive length Brian Brohm W24 -- Punt from W48 -- 24 yds T32 -- 20 yd FG -- 19 yds W43 -- 44 yd FG -- 30 yds 55 -- 43 yd Missed FG -- 20 yds Average drive - 23.25 yards Average starting point - Winnipeg 50 Robert Marve W46 -- Punt from W46 -- 0 yds T47 -- TD -- 47 yds T37 -- 35 yd Missed FG -- 9 yds W24 -- Punt from W28 -- 4 yds W35 -- Punt from W31 -- 4 yds T53 -- TD -- 53 yds Average drive - 19.5 yards Average starting point - Winnipeg 49 Josh Portis W21 -- Punt from W21 -- 0 yds W42 -- TD -- 68 yds W26 -- Punt from W30 -- 4 yds W15 -- Punt from W21 -- 6 yds Average drive - 19.5 yards Average starting point - Winnipeg 26

I agree, the coaches show has never been more entertaining.

They basically cleared out our import MLB prospects. Bass is still here but I think he's been getting looks at WILL. Pretty much confirms that Hurl is the guy.

Apparently Normand is looking good as well.

If we had kept Bishop after 2009 until 2013 we would have had a lot more wins in that timespan

We're not going to cut Mavre. We can keep all 4 QBs. Most teams keep more than 3 around in some capacity, whether it is on the reserve or injured lists.

I thought it was a pretty funny article.

Whatever guys!

I really don't think Mavre will be going to the NFL. If anything he will be seeking more playing time elsewhere in the CFL. But let's just wait and see how this season pans out.

I'm a little surprised there's no competition for the "thunder". Seemed like Da'Rel Scott might be here for that role... But didn't look like that kind of guy last night.

Ah yes, I see Gable is out for a month. He's had a lot of trouble staying healthy.

Well you said he's a bad pick and a Rider lover.

I was disappointed that none of our receivers really jumped off the page. Then again, none really seemed awful. If I had to pick the top receiver I'd probably say Logan was the best.

Gable and Grigsby is pretty good depth. Not sure many teams can claim that kind of depth at RB right now.

They're calling it a lower body injury anyways. They could be outright lying but seems doubtful.

I'd be surprised if they let Franks go right away. He had one bad play but several good ones.