AKAChip

I have a small issue with this line of thinking. I get winning gives the coaching staff some leeway but we've seen this exact staff make terrible roster decisions before and we don't have to just accept them as the right move.

He's third out of guys who have returned at least 15 kickoffs and his yards are purely a volume stat. He's a fine kickoff returner but he is not special and it is literally all he does remotely well. He is not a good receiver. We saw that in Saskatchewan and we see that here. Thorpe has proven more as a receiver in 5 games than Lankford has in his career. In my mind why weaken our receiving core so that Lankford can keep kick returning when we don't even know if Thorpe or Flanders would be a downgrade. We know that as a receiver Lankford is a downgrade on Thorpe and slot receiver is infinitely more important than kick returner. Especially when the return man is not a game breaker.

I realize his numbers are pretty good but Lankford only returns kicks and is more or less invisible as a receiver save for one long touchdown. Let's not make Lankford out to be more than what he is.

Explain to me what your idea of a logical solution would be. Seems like a team that is winning shouldn't be immune from criticism.

Yes because O'Shea has never made the wrong call when it comes to roster management before...

This isn't logical. The logical thing would be to take out the team's worst receiver in Lankford who can be replaced more than adequately in the return game.

Him having no comment is akin to supporting it. And Rod has plenty to say about the business of other teams. He even condemned Justin Cox.

Rod Pedersen is a spineless piece of garbage and I hope his tweet is not overlooked in the outrage over all of this.

All else being equal, sure. But it was a road win against a team playing their first game at a new stadium and it being the Riders' second game of the year while being the Bombers' first. Not nearly as simple as just being a 3 point OT win.

Hurl isn't that bad. He's infinitely better than Knox.

It took Austin 7 weeks to cut a guy who was late to practice and missed meetings. It will take him another 7 weeks to cut Banks.

Jennings is a legitimately bad quarterback. Wally is outsmarting himself by not playing Lulay.

He lost his job to a guy that while improving, has inspired little confidence. And it's not like we're getting any younger at the position as Carmichael is only a year younger.

Again, after six games. But if you're the kind of guy who says that "wins" are the only stat that matters, it's clear we aren't going to have a productive argument.

You're entitled to disagree as there is no way for me to prove this but even you can't deny that Nichols is in a situation where it's far easier for him to succeed than Collaros is.

Lol keep putting words in my mouth. Yards do matter sure as do touchdowns. Far more than wins and losses do when it comes to evaluating QBs. Also the stuff that Derek Taylor tracks like completion percentage on deep balls and other measures of efficiency that actually measure ability rather than "wins"

Maybe go back and read what I wrote. I talked about their "numbers" I could care less about wins and losses and I said as much.

I realize there is no way to prove this but swap Nichols for Collaros and you'd see the Bombers better and the Ticats worse. Barring injury. Nichols has a great offensive line, good receivers and a head coach and OC that call a balanced game that fits his strength. Collaros has the worst line in the league, depleted receivers and a head coach who refuses to run the ball. I'd like to see any QB succeed in that situation.

Wins are a team stat, compadre.

This is so insane that there is no need to respond to it. Put Reilly and Mitchell on this team and our record is even better but it's clear you have no desire to look at this objectively.

I will grant you that the QB play in the league is far poorer right now than anyone is talking about and I will grant that the argument could be made for Nichols being third even if I disagree with it but the point still stands that does him being the third best be default and so far back of Mitchell and Reilly really grant him the title of elite? I agree that Harris sucks and Jennings is very overrated but Collaros is likely my pick for third best as we can't discount the rest of his career based on this season alone.

You can throw Mitchell's wins and losses out the window as you can for any QB in the league. Still far better.

What in the world are you talking about? I don't need TSN to tell me who is good and who is garbage.

As far as what he has to do to prove it? Put up numbers reflective of an elite QB. Regularly going over 300 in a passing league would help. Don't get be wrong, I'm happy where this team is but we are getting way ahead of ourselves when it comes to our QB play.

My argument is because the team is winning, he is going to be overrated because the QB is always going to get a lot of credit. I'll give him some, he's done enough to not lose more often than not but record is easily the worst way to measure a QB in terms of actual ability. I would argue there is no conceivable way that he is top 3 but even if he were, he is so far behind your top 2 that it would be disingenuous to suggest that he is "elite" solely because he's third in your ranking.