TrueBlue4ever

So based on that report, the league must wrestle with one big question: who do we cater to? It is often said that the league must attract new younger fans. Well, if this survey is to be implemented, then the best path forward for those young fans is to adopt the NFL model. But the older fans are the ones with the disposable income who will buy the season tickets and want things status quo. So are we at the point of “adapt or die” which will alienate the (aging, dwindling, and already tiny 3%) diehards but is the preferred option of the next generation, or is there another way to woo the youngsters. Would they even really care if the rules changed, or would they still stay away?

“An article that had nothing to do with the Bombers didn’t bend over backwards to praise their greatness at every turn. What a slap in the face to this franchise!”

Lots to like about tonight’s game, especially given how many regular bodies were out and how long they were off. Copp was everywhere and could have potted 4 or 5. Scheifele put on his work boots and was playing well with Copp, and even made a great stick lift in the high slot to take away a prime Red Wing scoring opportunity in the 2nd. Svechnikov was in good position most of the night but just a half inch away on a few stick handles tonight from making a play. Connor-Dubois-Perfetti gave us a tantalizing view of the future. Controlled the play and the cycle when they were on, and that one 3-way pass play deserves to end up in the net. Perfetti has some sweet hands and brilliant vision. Bottom 6 did their jobs. Nothing truly noteworthy but the Wings never had sustained pressure for an entire shift until the 6 on 3. Defensively quite the gem. Morrissey was jumping up offensively more than any other game I can recall this year, but was smart about it. Schmidt played the big body game. DeMelo steady. Pionk had some nice passes and the penalty he took was a “good” one in that it stopped a net front scoring chance. As for the new kids, Samberg looked comfortable for game one and had some great body positioning to shield the puck and still skate the puck out of the zone with an opponent on his back. And Chisholm picked a puck out of mid-air to stop a breakaway pass in the 3rd. Hellebuyck was at his best, which means his body was in the way of the puck without looking like he was working hard or diving into position. Some smart quick passes out of the defensive zone, great sticks in the lanes, and some more aggressiveness on the penalty pressuring the puck handler (although not chasing the puck, and they still did sit back at times). Yeah, I’ve missed hockey during the COVID break.

KFC with the shorty into the empty net. And another Michigan alum goal makes it 3-0.

Fair point. Still have to play the homer card a bit, though, as the host broadcaster. And there are some out there who are MUCH MUCH worse at that. Having to come in after the combo of Hnidy and Ferraro is pretty thankless.

So I think Kevin Sawyer could be decent (not great, but acceptable) as a colour guy, and he can give some good insight and analysis, but he seems to be trying way too hard. 3 immediate things he could do to improve: 1. Limit 95-99% of his comments to the time during the play stoppages. Analyze the play when there is a break, not during live play. At most, a 5 word sentence if there is a transition in play that buys you a 2-3 second lull, otherwise wait for the whistle. 2. Keep it short (ironic coming from me, I know). Hockey is a fast game so play by play needs to be quick and simply stated. Adding long commentary in the middle of the action as the colour guy makes the play by play guy miss things. 3. Eliminate the folksy jokey stuff with Beyak in live game time. Way too much “buddy” banter, especially in live action time. Save the campfire story time for an extended break only when you need filler, and no more than once a game, or fit in a one second one-liner after a whistle and then move back to the game. Beyak has gotten sucked into these conversations more and more and is missing calls because he is talking about something else. I think the two of them have good chemistry but have not translated it into a tight broadcast for the games yet.

Copp with the snipe as the Jets’ penalty ends makes it 2-0.

And Samberg gets an assist on the play for his first NHL point.

FIFY.

Do we have any defenceman left? Who all is out (Beaulieu, Dillon, Stanley, Heinola, and DeMelo, right)?

Absolutely they do. Anytime I cross through the province to go between Manitoba and Alberta, I make sure to go as quickly as I can to spend the shortest time there possible.

He was in the testing area for 8 hours after the game and did not produce a substance, said he could not. Finally got fed up and said he would not give one and left the test room. Said some nasty things on the way out. Was considered a failed test for not producing a sample, got 2 games for that as per CFL policy. Got an additional game for the abuse of the testing officials. So unlike Harris who actually failed a test, he simply did not provide one, but same punishment. All the other comments about “he knew he was guilty”, “obviously using” is purely speculative, but with a logical foundation for that speculation.

This kind of stuff makes me smile rather than bother me. Fans that try to find that “if only” play as a justification for a loss just means they torture themselves more over a loss by deluding themselves rather than seeing that they need to get better. Case in point the “Fajardo crossbar”. The fans are convinced that the errant bounce was the only thing keeping them from a Grey Cup win in 2019, and disregard the four times the ‘Riders got to the Bomber 5 and only generated 6 points in total as the real reason for the loss. And the media is only too happy to sell a “heartbreak” narrative and not let pesky facts like the double coverage on the last play that would have more than likely knocked the ball away or picked it off, or that a TD would have still left them a convert away from only a tie. End result is even better than the clear loss. We still celebrate an earned win, the fans agonize more over a phony notion that they could have had it and it eats away at their soul, and the club accepts the false reality of “we were good enough to win” and doesn’t focus on making improvements, this setting them up for more failure the next season. So, yes, Ticat fans, that rouge was the only reason you lost. How that must sting!

This is the weird one to me. I would have thought someone who suffered financially because of lockdowns would jump at the potential cure. A comedienne named Julie Nolke did a series of online bits describing the pandemic to her past self, pretty clever. In one of the bits her future self shows up and the past version says “oh, you’re back with more bad news. Let me guess, still in lockdown, no vaccines” and the future one says “oh no, we have the vaccines, people just don’t want to take them”. The past self says “wait, people have been protesting the lockdowns and begging for society to get back to normal, now we have the vaccine that is the salvation we have been waiting for, and those same people now don’t want to take it? Seems like a bit of a slap in the face”. Here is a link to the video. It is number 5 in the series. The whole set is worth a watch IMO for a good chuckle.

You still have a working VHS machine? Better get that tape transferred to disc.

Thanks for putting an actual human touch on this pandemic by sharing your experience. These perspectives are valuable in navigating all the issues.

The only true “must” is Collaros. Of all the positions we need to fill, his loss at QB would cripple us.

This is a brilliant articulation. Thank you. There are studies in psychology that show even intelligent, educated people can be swayed by groupthink and whose ego won’t allow them to question the majority they are around. And we are dealing with a gigantic number of uneducated people out there who are all too easily influenced by others to satisfy their confirmation bias. Consistent messaging and better education would be a big help, and not giving oxygen to those “mavens” as you correctly label them would be a blessing. Great discussion all. Thanks for all the insights.

Let me try to clarify a bit. I have highlighted what I took issue with. Before I go down this rabbit hole, let me clearly state: 1. I am VERY pro-vaccination and it drives me crazy to see the continued resistance in some quarters. 2. I am strongly in favour of restrictions to privileges for those who, for other than medical reasons, opt not to take the vaccine. Suspend travel, bar entry to establishments, border crossings, etc., deny first access to medical treatment since you have done nothing to assist in the process and are putting others at risk. My point was that we are not talking about completely emotion-based decisions on one side and completely logic-based decisions on the other side. I believe it is more accurately presented as information vs. misinformation I am aware of the science I follow, and I believe it to be sound (it is the same science you tout, BTW). But you describe anti-vaxxers as using emotion and not logic, but now say logic can be flawed. THAT is my point - in their minds they are using logic, not emotion, and the pro-vaxxers are being emotionally driven by fear in rushing to get the vaccine. It is merely an issue of labelling. And I feel that is is being driven more so by misinformation as the underpinning to these decisions. To them, it is not a hunch, it is based on their form of logic, which is misguided by misinformation. To just shrug them off as using emotion instead of flawed thinking will not fix the problem. Firstly, not ALL of it. People are ultimately responsible for themselves, of course. But I will say that a sizeable portion of the blame can be pointed at those who peddle in misinformation from a position of influence, and we should not downplay the role they have in this, and the role they could play in correcting this misinformation for the public good. Secondly, you reference the misinformation out there from phone scientists and the former President, and say people are idiots who believe what they want to. Absolutely, you are actually agreeing with me. But that belief not emotion-based, but based on this kind of misinformation, and is being spread by influencers who are using the reach of the media, who are not shutting it down but throw it up on their screens. Not so much a defence of them as an indictment of those who spread the misinformation. And my concern is that just dismissing anti-vaxxers as too emotional to be reasoned with leads down the path of “we need to just enforce rules since some won’t think for themselves and are putting others at risk, so screw their feelings”. There is a part of me that does nor mind that approach for the sake of saving humanity, but how far can that approach go, and at what point does the majority make a decision that I think is wrong but is the popular one (remember the debate about the possibility of “herd immunity” and avoiding an economy-crippling shutdown at all costs in the days before the vaccine was available?). Do we just wash our hands of those who disagree, or do we push for better education and more responsible information dissemination from this who have the power to do so? Or are too many people beyond hope of changing their thinking?

To defend the anti-vax crowd for a minute (and this is the only minute l will spend on them) they could make the same argument against the vaccine crowd. “You are being ruled by emotional fear, so you are jumping to take an unproven vaccine that you don’t know the risks of. My logical research tells me there is no way a vaccine could be developed that quickly with no known risk”. The problem is the “logical” information everyone has access to, and the confirmation bias at play for both sides. Whatever logic is being applied has the emotional underpinning of “wanting to believe that logic”. I want to believe that vaccines will protect me, so I buy the reported science behind its safety and effectiveness, and point to the cases of anti-vaxxers dying or ending up in the ICU as validation of my side. They will point to vaxxers still catching COVID or having side effects as proof the vaccines are not working. Both sides can say that their science is sound and the opposite side is living in fantasy world, and there is enough noise out there on both sides to back up the basic position unless one digs past the chatter and gets some honest infallible research behind it, which can too easily get buried in the crush of “information” I put the blame a lot on the changing media landscape which has replaced hard news with opinion and entertainment for the sake of ratings over objective truth, not caring what their “spin” is and how it warps critical thinking so long as it gets them eyeballs and screen clicks. I have very little time for much of the media and the monsters they have created but take no accountability for under the guise of “journalistic freedom”. I will freely admit to having a massive bias based on personal experience.

Since Kane wanted to declare bankruptcy rather than pay his debts off with his $49M contract, he is probably happy that the rest of his contract has been voided so he can claim no means to pay things off.

Open question for the group, just looking for opinions: If people don’t want to enforce vaccinations but are OK with denying access to things or places as a privilege withheld, then how would people feel about denying access to healthcare or the ICU for those who refuse to take steps (I.e. getting vaccinated) to keep themselves and others as healthy as possible, keeping in mind that health care is a right and not a privilege? I am seriously on the fence here, as I don’t like the infringement of rights but also hate the thought of others being denied care because of the overcrowding of ICUs and it puts others at risk for their cancelled procedures.