GCn20

Given Stan's recent health, I am dressing Vanterpool as a precautionary measure and I think it is 100% the smart thing to do in this situation. Normally I would agree with Booch and suggest that dressing Vanterpool is not necessary. However, this week I think it is better safe than sorry. We need to make sure Stan is insulated because we can't risk losing him long term because we didn't have the foresight to be able to sit him down, even just to hydrate, if the effects of last week are lingering.

Getting rid of Zac would have taken one phone call. There are at least 5 teams that would have gladly traded for him. Brown would have fared no better this year in this offense. It's easier to blame the QB for a swiss cheese OL and receivers that are making rookie mistakes in route running. Is Zac still MOP calibre? Probably not but it is delusional to place all the blame on him.

Mild heat stroke would be my guess.

I believe that he is purposely putting a little more air on it because the routes and timing with the new guys aren't quite there yet. A more catchable ball than a laser in that situation. I could be wrong but I have noticed a difference between balls thrown to Demski/Lawler as opposed to those going to Wilson for instance. It's how a QB compensates for not being 100% dialed in with the route running of one or two of their guys. Also, on some of this throws he clearly not being able to plant well because of pressure. When he has time to set and deliver his arm has plenty of pop.

Yep, one guy built a culture that keeps things in the dressing room and just got his 100th win and will have a statue erected outside the stadium by the time he is done, the other is a guy who can count his wins over the past few seasons on one hand. As much as I hate MOS's canned ham answers, it's part of the reason his players love him.

It's community relations in a nutshell. The big club showing the Junior club some love. Doesn't cost us nothing really.

Bighill also has been used in a more traditional way the past few weeks and that too is paying off.

QBs throw different balls to different receivers. Zac's arm is fine. Directly nothing. Indirectly we help our only junior football team in this province strengthen their program. It is a feather in the Rifles recruitment cap.

Yep. BIG downgrade.

I think we've actually had a lot of that problem this year and it's to be somewhat expected given all the new faces in our receiving corps. Not sure I'm doing that on 3rd and inches, but definitely on 2nd and 1-2. There is no logical reason we can't do as you say in that situation.

He was a major part of it. MAJOR. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. He created and nurtured the culture that led to the winningest stretch in our past 40 years. He does not get more credit than he deserves. He deserves a lot of credit. Were there others that contributed? Of course there were. Miller supplied the vision, Walters built a formidable front office that is the best in the league, but why sell MOS short? He's not perfect, we've discussed that ad nauseum here, but he's no scrub either. He is a HOF HC that is one of our best in franchise history.

I see your point but I am guessing the Bombers feel pretty good about their odds in that scenario given Rourke's limited practice time.

Haba or Ayers off makes the most sense. However, I do understand the logic of Younger in taking Adams off. You have a very mobile QB coming in with almost no practice. Contain him between the tackles and he will make mistakes. Rourke will be going sandlot a whole bunch, because it will take him that extra second, when he does taking escape routes away is our best way to minimize any potential impact he may have. A quick edge rusher will help the most in that regard.

You don't give up much. It should be noted that VA's contract isn't terrible either and likely lower than what he gets if a bidding war starts. They shouldn't let him back at all, but if the Argos want this type of scum in their dressing room I guess that's up to them. Hope he gets booed out of every stadium including his own.

It will depend on how many teams feel desperate for a QB this offseason. If it is just one or two teams they likely wait for VA to get cut. If that number goes higher I'd suggest a trade will happen. It's not like VA's contract is an albotross or anything. It's a pretty fair contract, in fact, a team might trade for it to avoid having to pay more. Compensation wouldn't be high for BC tho.

Rourke hasn't faced a CFL defence and played behind a swiss cheese OL in 2 years. He's not going to have the timing down, and he's likely to get hit a lot. Can he survive it? We'll see but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets nicked up. Lions are kind of stupid rushing him back imo.

He will be tossing interceptions. Book it. No way he gets on the same page with all his receivers in a couple days of practice.

Yea that would be great. Too many conflicting stories out there in the ether that is the internet. I don't think anyone really knows for sure except Ambrosie...lmao.

Exactly. If you made a graph of every team in this league's lowest attendance years and compared it to their win/loss record their lowest attendance would come in years with the least wins. I think that goes in every sport. If we went a season and a half without winning a home game I can't imagine our attendance would be all that great either.

How to fix the Shmoes....I mean Elks....WIN! It's as simple as that. Build a winner. News article somewhere. Don't recall. Could be wrong...just the impression I was under. I believe we had a long discussion about this a couple months ago in one of the threads and sources were cited at that time. I was of the impression there was no limit as well, and it was other forum members here that came up with the specifics.

There is a total team limit. His cap hit is lower because of it, but it's 200k each year they still have to come up with each year because they have robbed Peter to pay Paul. There is a team limit and he just used up all or almost all of it.

Rourke signed a 3 year deal.

Very nice. Lawler and even Wheatfall will certainly help our receiving corps. All rookie contracts are for 2 years and all clubs retain the players rights for those 2 years.

3 year deal leads me to believe he got a butt load of that guaranteed in year 3 as well.

There isn't much money savings on Schoen. He had a significant portion of his contract as a signing bonus and personal service to the club exemption. Not only that but they get Mack back for rookie salary.