Mr Dee

Can you be so sure? If none of them had been available until February 11, do you think we still would have set our sights first on Collaros, second on Burris? That's what I said. This whole A,B, C concept was driven by whom exactly? Will we find that blueprint in the GM's office? No. The whole thing played out the way it did, exactly in that order, because of one thing - Jim Barker releasing Collaros early. Think about it. If he had not done that, Free Agency would have dictated where QBs ended up --unless a trade was made. However, the frenzy (and it was frenzy) started and virtually guaranteed who would be sought first before Free Agency. The chain of events was Collaros was released, causing Burris's release making Burris target #2 as then the frenzy swirled around him. I'm far from convinced the order would have played out in the same way otherwise.

Jacquie…tell him.

Source?

And this is a very good thing. The other day I made the analogy of Walters being in a poker game. Now you see why. He handled things beautifully. Hey, does Paul Wiecek owe Walters some sort of apology for dissing his handling of all things Bomber thus far?

Well..it turned out nice again folks. Today, the Happy Honker Award goes to …..Kyle Walters and Wade Miller.

Do you just pull information like this out of your butt? How do you even come to this conclusion? They just lost Glenn, why do you think they'd give us Tate? Just a hunch. Is this the same hunch where you said Khari was going to come here to be our next OC? Ask yourself... What does just a hunch rhyme with? Lunch? I like lunch. Munch? Cause I like to munch on lunch. Crunch? Cause I can crunch when I munch on lunch. Bunch? Cause I can crunch on a bunch when I munch on lunch. ...ok I give up. You were close…just a hunch….out to lunch

More like questions being asked if we just lost Etienne for nothing and he played well elsewhere, don't you think? Well no I'm thinking more along the lines of if Etienne plays well somewhere else then why couldn't he do it here? Would raise a hell of a lot of questions about a lot of things don't you think? Like I said I don't mind trading FA for FA if you don't expect to sigh the guy but if the Bombers so totally gave up on/ never gave a chance to Etienne and he winds up working out where he plays next then it raises a lot of serious questions. One of the things I always did wonder about the recent sets of Bomber Coaches was their ability to see and be able to develop the talent we did have. Did I have confidence in their estimations? Hell no. So yes, in that regard I did have questions because what kind of evaluations can be made with the kind of Coaching we've seen employed. That certainly applies to Etienne. But trading Etienne, in this situation, in a very good move, thereby cancelling any more questions I would have had. It's a very good day. Thanks god...I was tiring of your incessant chattering. Silly you…didn't know I'm a chatter-boxer from way back when.

More like questions being asked if we just lost Etienne for nothing and he played well elsewhere, don't you think? Well no I'm thinking more along the lines of if Etienne plays well somewhere else then why couldn't he do it here? Would raise a hell of a lot of questions about a lot of things don't you think? Like I said I don't mind trading FA for FA if you don't expect to sigh the guy but if the Bombers so totally gave up on/ never gave a chance to Etienne and he winds up working out where he plays next then it raises a lot of serious questions. One of the things I always did wonder about the recent sets of Bomber Coaches was their ability to see and be able to develop the talent we did have. Did I have confidence in their estimations? Hell no. So yes, in that regard I did have questions because what kind of evaluations can be made with the kind of Coaching we've seen employed. That certainly applies to Etienne. But trading Etienne, in this situation, in a very good move, thereby cancelling any more questions I would have had. It's a very good day.

Do you just pull information like this out of your butt? How do you even come to this conclusion? They just lost Glenn, why do you think they'd give us Tate? Just a hunch. Is this the same hunch where you said Khari was going to come here to be our next OC? Ask yourself... What does just a hunch rhyme with?

Feb. 4 & 5 were low points for Bomber's psyche, but I'm excited to say we have a QB who, at least, has a legitimate shot of starting and doing well in the CFL. I definitely feel that the reset button has finally been pushed.

More like questions being asked if we just lost Etienne for nothing and he played well elsewhere, don't you think? I would not have had a problem with that. Maybe you wouldn't have, but I know damned well there would have been lots of Etienne flak being thrown around, some of which Etienne would have caught, but most of which would have been directed at Bomber Mgmt.

More like questions being asked if we just lost Etienne for nothing and he played well elsewhere, don't you think?

When Hall was put in, he showed he was learning the system, was reading the defence well and usually put the ball in the right read. He was progressing nicely and seems to show an aptitude for the Canadian game. He can move the ball. That's the good news. His arm strength is only functional to a spot or leading a receiver. As to velocity, I believe I typed this post faster. Haven't seen a display of arm strength. There is also the issue of scramble ability. Not…a…strong…point. All in all, I can see Hall as a decent back up who can come in and play the game. Not sold on him being a starter. **I was/am a fan of bringing in Willy.

Certainly would confuse more tacklers on the option play.

Speaking of reputations…I have to wonder what Glenn and his agent, think of Desjardins now that he basically just tossed them aside. They still think he's a dreamy GM? But I'm sure they'll remain quiet and pure, and still deal with Desjardins as his new reputation deserves. I know how I would look at it..

And the lesson is…serious injuries age players quickly.

Funny quote from Bauming on his signing…. Darrin Bauming ‏@DarrinBauming 7m Well, if you can turn duck Tim Tebow tosses into TDs, maybe Winnipeg is the best place for ya.

Relax, I just think Wiecek has seen the word failed so many times throughout his life, it comes naturally for him.

That bloody Kevin..never could do things the right way.

Geez, you make it sound like Giddings (Burris's agent) would love to sign such an obvious one-sided contract that would have his clients coconuts in a vise and that he would sign with glee. If that really is the case, why is Burris's contract structured more heavily with Ottawa…in the 1st year, because Giddings is a rookie?

True but if we are saving money on a QB, and Henoc goes to the NFL, I imagine we'll have some cash to throw around. We need Canadian starters. By my count, if things stay the way they are, there are 6 Canadian starters from other teams that will hit free agency... Bourke, Laurent, Butler, Myddelton, Kohlert, and Emry. It would be nice to land one or more of those names. I wouldn't say Myddleton is a starting quality OL. Maybe for Ottawa. That's ok then, we can trade his ass for Glenn, although Ottawa may already have one ass too many. (Burris - the new volley begins)

I think we have a reasonable shot at Myddelton and Kohlert…hey, it's a start.

Did Ottawa pay Burris 465k/yr for 3 years. If so that is what I would call mortgaging the future....financially. QBs have notorious egos so paying this old guy 1;3M is madness. You can win a GC with a less than average QB (Sean Salisbury) if you have great D and a decent offense... No. An average quarterback and defence can get you to the big game... only to get blown out by a great quarterback... see 2011. I'll take it.

You should stick to quotes from Harry Potter - they're more magical. Apart from the #2 QB from Sask. Willy, there is one of Crompton or Nichols, Toronto still has 4 QBs and ….Glenn. Out-manuveured? By not paying $450-465000 for a stand-in QB? Out-manuveur me all night long.