TrueBlue4ever

So the special teams have been completed, with Wade Miller taking the last spot, and John Bonk is running away with the vote at Centre. Therefore it is time to move on to the guards and tackles. I have divided them up as best I can into their specific spot, hopefully I have not made any glaring errors as to who plays in what position (some players split time at both, tried to divide them based on where they either played the longest or where they received league recognition at all-star time). All info as to position comes first from the Blue Bomber media guide and then other online player sites - don't hate on me if I got a position wrong, but please offer corrections, and as always any omissions. Here is a sizable list of nominees to start things off. GUARD - Nick Bastaja, David Black, Travis Bond, Larry Butler, Bill Ceretti, Brendan LaBatte, Ed Kotowich, Les Lear, Bob Lueck, Brett MacNeill, Lou Mogol, Steve Patrick, Cornell Piper, Sherwyn Thorson TACKLE (there will be at least a couple of really great players who won't make the top 2 here) - Stanley Bryant, Mo Elewonibi, Bill Frank, Martin Gainor, Dan Goodspeed, Jamarcus Hardrick, Richard Huffman, Glenn January, Dave Mudge, Butch Norman, Christopher Perez, Frank Rigney, Roger Savoie, Bobby Thompson, Buddy Tinsley, Chris Walby

It would have been 17 (16 actually if you apply the ROW option and assume that wins come by that means) last night before the Wild loss to San Jose. If you remove the ROW angle, the magic number is now 15 (combo of points gained by Winnipeg and points lost by Minnesota to guarantee that the Jets finish above Minny in the standings). The numbers change fast, no fault ascribed to you for the post.

Well folks, the solution is to rise above any name calling and sidetracking arguments designed to derail the topic and move on. KBF and pigseye have an opinion, and they are entitled to it. They even try to offer studies to back up their opinions. So let them. The simple answer to those studies is to challenge their veracity, which actually gets to be kind of fun if you want it to be. Like Jon Stewart said on his final show about sniffing out bull ****. It took a few minutes to determine that the Taylor study was debunked and his slanted peer review process was a sham. KBF conveniently forgot about the actual study and said the counter-argument "didn't prove what it proved". We called out the Heartland Institute he worked at, and again, he shifts the narrative saying we are sheep who follow big brother rather than addressing the issue of a flawed study. Pigseye to his credit points out a flawed study on the other side, one that the authors copped to when their math did not add up. That is what science is supposed to be about - withstanding disprovability. He then posts the hurricane study, which basically does not say anything conclusive one way or another if you take a read at it. It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement, It is interesting that the same study does accept as a premise that mankind is responsible for the rising sea temperatures and that some models show a correlation with hurricane intensity (one shows the opposite, and others are non-conclusive). Hopefully he is not holding up this study as "proof" that climate change is a hoax, but rather the idea that this particular hypothesis is not yet proven and further study is needed. But let's get past the baiting and accusations of "climate deniers" and "chicken littles". Such inflammatory rhetoric serves only to create division - a staple of internet discussion boards. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just be prepared to back it up with facts, and if called on it, use those facts to bolster your point, or, if your argument falls, have the simple dignity to acknowledge that you were wrong (a real toughy for so many). And if you find yourself proving the other side wrong, spare everyone the gloating - that is no better in terms of keeping peace on the boards. MY OPINION, and it is only mine, is that KBF mentions the "politicization" of climate science because, as he put it himself "It's all about power and nothing about science". Well, that may or may not be true, or is partially true, but wouldn't that apply to both sides of the argument, and not just one? It seems that big oil and big gas have a lot of sway (power) in politics and would like to keep the status quo, and could do so by thwarting efforts to decry their system as one that is destroying the planet. I have a motivation for accepting the 97% who say climate change is real, strongly influenced by mankind, and that significant changes are needed to avoid dire consequences - I am concerned about the future planet I leave for my kids. I am no scientist, but I have noticed an increase in extreme weather, and when I am told the last ten years have all been the hottest ever record (or 9 out of 10, if I have misquoted the result I admit my mistake - it is not meant to deceive). I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing? Anyway, we can see where the thread has gone, and I enjoy a healthy debate and don't want to see another thread locked down, so let's get back to tackling the issue and not each other. If someone tries to switch the topic when questioned, and one re-asking of the question does not elicit a desired response, let's all just move on. By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) if that rejection was based solely on his stance, or some flaw in his research. One would hope his work would stand on its own with provable scientific merit. The piece offers other examples of where this pseudonym practice was done, and I think it is important to recognize the rationale and not just dismiss it, and the value of double-blind studies. I also note that a NASA researcher also points out the flaw in the study itself, not just the questionable (to them) tactics of hiding behind a different name. THAT is what science should be - ignore the author, challenge the findings. This NASA researcher claims that a too simplistic mathematical model with too few data points is used, and fudged some numbers regarding Mars to make it fit the model. So I can appreciate that the article is not just an attack on the man but points out flaws in his scientific model (at least according to the researcher). Would have preferred a more thorough rebuttal if there were grounds to do so Here is the entire article, a good read to give some perspective on both sides: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/?utm_term=.86d3367f1826 So let's all be vigilant, and challenge the findings and not just each other, and be clear on our motives when asked. Galileo was imprisoned for his belief that the world was round and revolved around the sun, but did not back down from his scientific claims in the face of establishment religious and political pressure. Maybe we can all aspire to the same conviction and back up our beliefs with solid evidence and not derail topics with simple rhetoric. Namaste!

delete

Actually it's 14. Minnesota can get no more than 98 points right now, and assuming that the Jets' wins are of the ROW variety, if they win 7 games they will have more ROW wins than Minny, and that is 1st tie breaker.

That model assumes that the other teams all win out, which isn't going to happen either. But right now this is the simple math of what the Jets need to do regardless of any other team's performance. I'd say that anything other than the option of finishing first in the conference is definitely in play.

Jets playoff watch, as of 10:00 am March 11: Assuming all regulation or overtime wins: - Clinch a playoff spot with an 8-6 record - Clinch the top wildcard spot with an 8-5-1 record - Clinch 3rd in the Central with a 10-4 record - Clinch 1st in the Central with an 11-2-1 record - Clinch 1st in the West with a 14-0 record, and 2 Calgary losses and 2 losses and a tie by San Jose in non head-to-head games with the Jets

If you ever want to convince someone of the damage alcohol and drug abuse can do, show them side by side pictures of Vincent in the mid-80's and then in 1996 after his near-fatal drunk driving accident, where he broke his neck. Had to have his leg amputated later in life due to his poor health. Truly a guy on top of the world who lost it all due to his demons.

Sorry that I missed Vankoughnett. He seemed undersized to me (yet was 6'4", weighed only 240 lbs) but he had a nasty streak (not dirty, but you didn't mess with him). As for Mo, all I can remember of his days at centre was that he butchered the shotgun snap so badly for the first 6 games or so when he was pressed into action at that position that the QBs had to move back under centre because he kept rifling them over their heads. Needless to say he did not long snap.

One man's take: This category will be more subjective, as o-linemen don't have sexy stats to bolster their cases. Best bet is to look at their all-star nods or awards to see how they were regarded across the league, but even that is tricky because the awards did not come into play until the 1970's for o-linemen specifically. I have tried to include a personal bio, but even then in a few cases the info is lacking. So I welcome any personal insights. As for me, there are 2 names I have heard mentioned in my time as a Bomber fan, so I pretty much boil it down to those 2. Speedflex nominated Desjardins, but alas I could not find a bio about him, so I have no frame of reference. Adelman did double duty in multiple positions and also managed the club during his player retirement, so bonus points there. Druxman played in the glory years and blocked for Leo Lewis, and bonus points for his connection to the Pemby, where I imbibed on more than a few occasions during my mis-spent youth. Wilson may hold the Bomber record for most Grey Cups appeared in, and all must be commended for coming from or staying in the local community. But for me it comes down to Swift versus Bonk. Swift was a converted running back who paved the way for a new breed of centre speciailst after many years of players having multiple positions on the field. He gave way to Bonk (whose name alone screams offensive lineman) who excelled at the position for over a decade, blocking for the likes of William Miller and Willard Reaves during his MOP season in 1984, when Bonk was the best o-lineman in the game. Bonk was the most decorated awards-wise, and he was a rock in the middle of that line. His iron man streak is all the more impressive given the physical beating his position would require of him. John Bonk is my obvious pick here.

Here are the bios: CFL all-stars first awarded in 1962. Most Outstanding Lineman first awarded in 1956 and included defensive linemen, Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman first awarded in 1974. Lou Adelman – 9 seasons (1930-37, 41), 3 Grey Cup appearances (1935, 37, 41), 2 time Grey Cup champion (1935, 41), also was club’s manager in 1937-38, and 1945. John Bonk – 195 games (#6 in club history) in 13 seasons (1973-85), 4 time divisional and 4 time CFL all-star (1982-85), 4 time team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1979, 82-84), Western Division Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1983), CFL Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1984), played in 195 consecutive games as a Blue Bomber at centre, was involved in every single offensive play (including punts) for the Bombers in 1984, Grey Cup appearance and champion in 1984, CFL Hall of Fame Paul Desjardins – 96 games in 6 seasons (1965-70), Grey Cup appearance in 1965, no bio available George Druxman – 111 games in 9 seasons (1955-63), divisional all-star in 1956, 5 Grey Cup appearances (1957-59, 61, 62), 4 time Grey Cup champion (1958, 59, 61, 62), after retirement he ran the Pembina Hotel with his family. Bob Swift – 112 games in 7 seasons (1971-77), 4 time divisional all-star (1971-74), and 3 time CFL all-star (1971, 72, 74), 2 time team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1974, 77), started his career as a fullback in BC and rushed for over 1,000 yards in his rookie year before breaking his leg and converting to the o-line Mel Wilson – 9 seasons (1937-42, 45-47), 3 time divisional all-star (1941, 46, 47), 8 Grey Cup appearances (1937-39, 41, 42, 45-47) and 2 time Grey Cup champion (1939, 41), also head coach at St. John’s high school and a referee, won amateur trophies in golf, racquetball, curling and ballroom dancing

OK, something screwy is happening with these polls, because this one was supposed to stay open until the 10th (Sunday) and I know I set it up that way. Could one of the mods please fix this, because it won't let me edit it myself. Thanks again.

Counterpoint: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

https://globalnews.ca/news/5021227/world-record-confirmed-manitoba-snow-maze-is-worlds-largest/

Hey, I don’t want friction between posters here on this issue of centre vs center. I know, I’ll run a poll, lol.

Suddenly feeling very old today.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/saskatchewan-born-model-advocate-elly-mayday-dies-at-30/ar-BBUmpZL?ocid=ientp

I thought it was just a Canadian vs American thing.

Voting complete on the returners, and Keith Stokes and Albert Johnson III (in possibly a bit of an upset over Leo Lewis) are our punt and kick returners of all-time. While we sort out the last of the special teams positions, it is time to move to the offence, and we will start with the o-line, specifically the centre position. My initial list includes the following - all Blue Bomber hall of famers, by the way: Lou Adelman, John Bonk, George Druxman, Bob Swift, and Mel Wilson. Please add any you think I should consider for the centre position, will look to have the bios up for Friday.

delete

delete

With Morrissey out and Myers on the second unit, Trouba is the default. Chariot would have a more dangerous shot back there, but with Laine playing at the faceoff dot and not covering the point or securing wide shots off the wall well, I think Maurice sees the danger of a possible short-handed two-on-one and wants a reliable d-man to handle the counter-attack rather than another pinching guy like Myers or defensive liability back there. With Myers on, he can count on Ehlers' or Perrault's speed and Little's defensive-mindedness to cover on a backcheck. Although I am impressed with Niku's offensive vision, foot movement and puckhandling inside the other team's zone.