Mr Dee

All doubts removed now...Burke is now the known poster.

Really, there's nobody else. And his newly crafted offence certainly didn't have a hand in our losing the game. OTOH, hmm With Hall going out when he did, we're left with no idea of what may have happened. Of course with our defence playing 17 pts. and out, it wouldn't have mattered.

No worries, there just on a fly pattern. Boltus has a strong arm, but this may be ridiculous.

Burke is done. He has no part of the game going forward. You can almost understand the O moving abysmally, but the defence should have been figured out with his direct input. The defence should have been on fire, blitzing and stunting and playing tight coverage. It was a fail right from the start. Boo Creehan, boo Burke.

Watching Buck play quarterback reminds me of the way Durant plays. Or did Jimmy spell it Durante? When the Bombers said they revised about 50% of their playbook, I didn't think they meant they took out the 50% that worked. Who would have thought that our play of the game would be from a guy who's been kicking here for barely 3 weeks. Buck left the game with an unknown injury, which happened at an unknown time, the extent of which are also unknown. It seems Buck and the unknown are well acquainted.

That's it? "Kel surprize"

Collaros is going to be a free agent and free agency is something we'll actually be looking at in the future.

That's a beaut!

Originally, that is how I took it.

He was 16 for 26 tonight... and 21 for 25 against BC... I know Mack is gone and it hurts... but no reason to just make things up... Now look who's looking for things that aren't there. Your reference to all things Mack is weird because my post had nothing to do with him...at all. Take another look...it's a Buck playing reference. You know Buck gets the reps, backup QB invariably has to go in, is not ready, looks unprepared. Are you getting the drift now? As for making things up? Collaros looked good against BC didn't he? They had a great game plan and even when things broke down, Collaros was able to scramble and get it done. All in good game preparation. This game Collaros was thrown in after Ray went down, probably with little game prep. He looked no where near the same. Sure, he was able to hook up on some throws, and his scrambling was still there, but if you're telling me didn't play more like a rookie this game, you're off. I've got nothing against Collaros, he might even be pretty good. Too soon to say for me. But my post was strictly a comment of what usually happens to us with back ups thrown in and in this case, it happened to Toronto.

Leaving aside some of those non-calls, Toronto was out of this game when R Ray went down...no doubt about it. It seems the back up QB didn't get enough reps and wasn't ready to face this team when the 1st string QB went down.

They missed a simple offside penalty against Tor. early in the game - one D lineman clearly had his hand in the neutral zone. Should have been a 1st down and probably a TD. Instead it was a FG. I watched the game in two parts and I remember 3 instances where majors were easily visible, and were not called. Even Forde commented on one.

Did they force you to write that? (Wink if you think they're listening.)

WANTED For questioning AKA SCARF*FACE

There is no way Toronto is going to lose...the same way there was no way BC was going to lose.

Just his feelings.

With an imaginative offence (anybody remember what that is), they could make this Etienne/Denmark change really work.

I can't understand how the initials BC stands for woeful. No answer for Mont. blitz package. Wow.

Fact .Fact ..Fact ...Fact The facts aren't really off...it's just the way you're looking at them.

And you wouldn't walk away from those terms?

imo, maybe Mack didn't go after him hard enough and it wasn't such a slam dunk he going to EE, I mean, how do you know if you don't try? and haven't spoken to him, like you said, to find out? According to the Wpg. Free Press: (without picking quotes out of context): "We had no opportunity to speak to the gentleman and we’d had no feedback at all and nothing to go on," said Mack. "And purely from a practical standpoint, why would you sign (with Edmonton) early unless there’s absolutely where you wanted to be in the first place. "Because two weeks from now, he would have increased his overall leverage because he would have been a free agent." Mack said the Lions also approached the Bombers about trading Reilly to Winnipeg prior to the quarterback becoming a free agent on Feb. 15. Mack didn’t say what terms the Lions offered, but he didn’t dispute published reports on Thursday that B.C. was seeking to swap first round draft picks with Winnipeg this year -- B.C. drafts seventh overall while Winnipeg drafts second overall -- and also wanted a third-rounder. Mack said the Bombers were told they wouldn’t be allowed to speak to Reilly prior to Feb. 15 unless they did that deal and he felt that simply wasn’t a deal he could do. Mack repeated that he feels the fact Reilly signed with Edmonton today rather than going to free agency and potentially becoming the subject of a bidding war between the Eskimos and Bombers suggests Reilly never really did seriously consider Winnipeg. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/Reilly-never-seriously-considered-playing-for-Bombers-Mack-189254001.html

I'm going to be watching this game, beer in hand, (not a pop) with a smile on my face.

Now you're just skewing around.