Mr Dee

It really doesn't matter if Ekakitie is deemed 'pro ready. ' He fits a need he's getting the work necessary to be a pro. We're just lucky we can afford to bring him along while getting high output from others on that line. When there will be a need he will be ready., just like the other draft choices who are filling a need.

Probably Ekakitie's progress would have been approached differently if the 'poop' hadn't hit the fan.*base.

Bill Beacon - Canadian Press (writing for 3downnation) But Ray Lankford caught a touchdown pass, a short kick worked, and a second penalty-aided drive got the Bombers to the one-yard line, from which Andrew Harris was deemed to have scored even if he looked on the replays to have been stopped short. Ray? Lankford. - a short kick worked? That's his description? - deemed to have scored? - looked to have been stopped short? No bias there BOB ******* Winnipeg Sun - Before this season, the Bombers had been 6-2 or better only once in the last 15 years (since 2001). - Winnipeg hasn't made the playoffs in back-to-back seasons since 2007-08. - Winnipeg hasn't had winning records in back-to-back seasons since 2002-03. ?‍?Will the Bombers take the Alouettes for granted? O'Shea quote - Every down, every play, every series, we have to fight extremely hard to give ourselves the chance to come out with the win.” Westerman quote - on looking to 1st place "That'd be the biggest mistake,” Westerman said. “To think about first place or where we're at in the division, you really just have to focus on the games in front of you. You can't take your eye off the ball.”

No closed practices this week = no practiced trick plays?

Well, when you only have one dress how many appearances can you make?

I guess Chris Jones believes diversity means including washouts as part of the Riders strength... All they need now is the T-shirts...

Calgary - breaking out the sharpest looking helmets for Labour Day...

Sure Mike. That's your take. To me, when a game is on the line, they're key kicks. I have not changed that point from the beginning. All his FGs have been an important part of the game. That's my point. You want to limit it to the edge of all kicks (50 yarders and above) Go ahead. I don't have that limit. I've said it all in my posts. That's it.

Doesn't change the fact that any one of the made FGs was important and 'key' in winning those games. You're arguing that Medlock isn't having a great year. On that we can agree. So, yes we could have won the BC game, but lost the Mont. game or the Sask. game or the Ottawa game. He still had to make those for us to win those games. That was my point, and for some reason you're disputing that.

Spin? Those are key FGs just like I mentioned. If they're not made, we don't win those games. So, in your discussion, why aren't they 'key.'

Or we'd be 4-4. We had several close games. Wins by 3 points, 1 point and 3 points again. Medlock: 5-5 key win sask 3 point win 4-4 win in Tor 2-4 win Montreal by one point 6-7 win Ottawa by 3 points

No surprise...

Because of last year, CFL fans, and others across the league, said what we were doing was unsustainable. That we were relying much too much on Medlock to win us games. AND, that our turnover ratio could not be matched. Well, O'Shea revealed that we were on pace to reach our interception totals from last year, but, as we've seen in the last couple of games...we're dropping those catches as opposed to making the play. At least 3 last game alone. Penalties also have cancelled a few. But, that does happen in sports. Medlock? Yeah, he's not above missing. But the key ones are still there. So, CFL fans...6-2. Sustain that.

Bomber days...In keeping with the times... Days gone by.... Recently...

"Architect LaPolice has Bombers offence on pace for best season in 23 years" - Ted Wyman What LaPo does well is I think he empowers the people who coach for him and also the players,” Bombers offensive lineman Matthias Goossen said. I think he’s done an amazing job,” running back Andrew Harris said Monday. “Last year he got a feel for the type of athletes he had in the offence and this year he has really morphed us into something … putting us in positions to succeed and understanding what we’re good at, what we’re not so good at and just playing to our advantages. “(It’s been) excellent,” O’Shea said. “The last game especially I thought he had a very good game plan. It was well executed by the players, which meant it was coached well on a short week. For them to be able to put some stuff in and get it executed, it’s all pretty pleasing stuff.” http://www.winnipegsun.com/2017/08/21/architect-lapolice-has-bombers-offence-on-pace-for-best-season-in-23-years?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feedrinse%2FRWsG+(Blue+Bombers+Channel)

Yes, you're right, I was soo confused. I was heading down the direction that the same thing would have happened anyways, but that's only conjecture. As is this whole line of what ifs. Tricky or not, we had a play that failed. Damn eh? 1st time this year too (TIC) So, the trick didn't work, running other scenarios by you didn't work, so now I'll pass, and see if that works. How about that?

Andrew Harris - “We’re the best team in the league at the no-huddle. We put teams in the position where they have too many guys or the wrong personnel. We’re going to continue to expand that. It’s good to mix in throughout the game.” When watching this game, it’s clear Bombers’ offensive coordinator Paul Lapolice wanted to take advantage of Edmonton’s excessive defensive personnel substitutions by going no-huddle. Eskimos defensive coordinator Mike Benevides changes personnel groupings in-game more than any defensive coordinator in the league. In Thursday’s game against the Bombers, the Eskimos were constantly flipping between their base and nickel personnel (DB #42 Cauchy Muamba subs in at WILL linebacker) packages throughout the game, attempting to put faster, more natural cover players in space in passing situations. Leading up to this huge week nine showdown, Lapolice and the Bombers’ staff clearly believed they could catch the Eskimos with either the wrong personnel on the field or without enough time to communicate everyone’s assignments after making personnel changes – and they were right. The Bombers had tremendous success with their no-huddle offence in this game. This is an informative read from Eric Mathews and teases us with what the Bombers have learned and are applying.. More here...https://bomberbuzz.com/2017/08/21/bombers-deploy-no-huddle-offense-to-rout-eskimos/amp/

It's just extraordinary that we can even count 3 players in the running...

Darrin Bauming asks... Who is the midseason Most Outstanding Player for the #Bombers? #CFL60 Get your vote in as Darrin will discuss on CFL:60 tonight, 6-7 p.m. on TSN 1290. A very interesting question.

2nd and long? It was the same distance - 6 yards. And if Harris is stopped or stuffed, does that change the fact that Nichols gets sacked on the next play as before? So, how can that be more reasonable if the first play doesn't work? If any play doesn't work it's still 2nd and goal from the 6, isn't it? And calling that play on second down when they're sending a blitz? How would that have worked when more than one player touches the ball? Stupid or brilliant? It all only matters if any specific play gets positive results. I'm not arguing that the play should have been called, I'm just saying any 1st play could have been stopped and the results would have been the same....from beyond the 6 yard line after the sack. 3rd down FG. I remember damned well when posters would ream LaPo for a running play when it was obviously a running play....and it didn't work. What was said again? Oh yeah too conservative...

You guys can call it a bad play call if you want..you're entitled...because it didn't work. I see it no different than a run up the middle that gets stuffed, or a long fade in the end zone that's too far, or for that matter, any play that didn't work. You're putting forward the belief that any other play call had a better chance of working. And that's a possibility, but not a guarantee. The very next play showed what could happen...a sack. That play was specifically designed for that spot on the field, and it was called because the same play worked perfectly last year when it was tried. Was it still a bad call then? To me, it was simply a call that didn't work, nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, thanks for that. ? Not is not my favourite thing..?