TrueBlue4ever

I welcome all input and bio additions, especially those who cite their sources. For everyone’s information, I am gleaning my stats from cfldb.ca and justsportsstats.com (or their sister site Stats Crew) as well as bluebombers.com and cfl.ca. My sources did not have the tackle stats attributed to the Houston Gamblers website, and the sack totals there do not jibe with my sources, but we are limited to what the internet will tell us absent actual game sheets, which I don’t have access to. I strive for accuracy, but recognize my limitations.

That will be the plan. Probably shorten the voting to just the weekend.

Just under 12 hours left to get your votes in, and a real barn burner for the second spot here. For the first time in any of the position polls, every nominee in the category has at least one vote.

No doubt, but don't give him any ammo for his base by letting him say "I want to work this out, the Dems are now ignoring me - their fault, they own the shutdown" Trump is so quick to anger there is really no danger to accepting the meeting. He will walk out first. The Dems can't just sit back and be quiet. In today's world noise and spin control a lot of what the public believes to be true. Keep pointing out the fact that he had 2 years with a Republican controlled House and still couldn't get the votes then. People who are out of work want to see at least one side trying to negotiate .Trump says so much garbage you forget what he said last week, so get him to repeat some of his rants for a fresh week of attack.

You know, going back to the video of the day Trump invited Pelosi and Schumer to the Oval office, you can just see the smug glee on Schumer's face the moment Trump says "I will own the shutdown, be proud to shut down the government, and won't blame you for it". They knew his ego would not allow him to lose an argument in front of the cameras for fear of looking weak, and totally baited him with the shutdown option. Trump, rather than getting into a debate about what type of security was needed, jumped right to the options of "keep the government open while we negotiate and you'll never give it to me, so I look weak and not the dealmaker I claim to be", or "I say I don't want a shutdown and (a) show that I am agreeing with Dems, which I can't do ,and (b) then stonewall, and I'm a liar", so he went for the nuclear option of "I will be a leader and shut down until I get what I want, because I am the Commander in Chief and I am in control, and you can't show me to be weak by agreeing that I'm afraid to shut it down" not thinking the Dems would call his bluff. Schumer almost seemed surprised that it was so easy to trap him this way. No wonder Trump's handlers were deathly afraid of him testifying in person to Mueller and demanded written questions that Trump could take his time with to consider his answers, imagine how quickly Trump would have folded under THAT questioning. I think the Dems should accept the invite to the White House. Let Trump meet them, say they have a spending Bill in the House to re-open the government that has already passed, and want McConnell to do his job and put it before the Senate for a vote. Trump will parrot his same line of "if I open Government will you give me my wall", they say no we want a proper vote on our bill first and he storms out again. Same effect as not going, but it looks like you at least are prepared to meet and re-open discussions and Trump is just doing the same blocking. At this point, everyone knows there is no negotiating to be had, it's all about who is working to open Government and who is working to keep it closed. Trump is trying to change the narrative with his "I am in the White House waiting and they don't want to negotiate" tweets, so cut that argument off at the knees by agreeing to meet - you know he will storm out angrily within 2 minutes, then re-tweet his message with the follow-up "WE did try again, but who walked out again with no discussion? We are not the problem" It's not overkill, public has short attention span, and the media wants a new story, so re-play the old one to keep it fresh. JMO.

Wow.

And this guy too for G.M.

On what basis do you say the FBI has no authority to investigate a President, only Congress? The FBI is a police agency, and last I checked, police open criminal investigations all the time. So far, your only justification for your position is "that's not the way I see it". Cite me a passage from the Constitution, the U.S, Criminal Code, a binding case from the Supreme Court, or the FBI field manual, please. Not trying (too much) to be argumentative, seriously want to know what prevents the FBI from doing this if you know, because I don't. An FBI investigation into a person (any person) acting as an agent for a foreign power would fall under the criminal offence of treason, would it not?

Saw a little twitter war between Trump and Pelosi this morning: Trump tweet: "Nancy and Cryin' Chuck can end the Shutdown in 15 minutes. At this point it has become their, and the Democrats, fault!" Pelosi, tweeting in response: "The truth? Republicans started the #TrumpShutdown - and the Democrats are working to end it. @realDonaldTrump, it's time for you to stop standing in the way of re-opening the government. Let the Senate vote! #EndTheShutdown" (complete with the video of Trump telling Schumer that HE will shut down the Government if he doesn't get his way). Politics in the 21st century. Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary procedure be damned. One interesting tweet from a random citizen as a possible solution that showed up in this thread. The gist of it was: Democrats put up a spending bill to re-open the Government that includes the $5.7 billion for the wall, but also includes full protections for DACA once and for all, and also full protection for the Mueller investigation from any interference, allows it complete control to finish the investigation without the threat of closure or firings, and forces it to be made fully public to the American people with no editing or redactions. Would Trump sign that bill? Would the Dems write such a bill? Should they add the rider that Trump must produce his tax returns in full immediately, or submit to questioning in person from the Mueller investigation? (Too much?)

"More clearly and forcefully" = "at all"

I hope that the mid-term results show that Americans are not fatigued by the Trump circus and would not be willing to just brush it off as "meh" news. Dems best hope long term is to wrest control of both houses and the Presidency and then pass bills eliminating the electoral college system. Most polls (at least the ones I've seen, and yes I know polls can be skewed, so I'm happy to be pointed to other sources) show a liberal bent in the U.S. with respect to same sex marriage. abortion rights, gender pay equality, and gun control. Democrats have won 6 of the last 7 popular votes for President.

This bio from bluebombers.com and the Hall of Fame section regarding Jeff Nicklin. A true hero whom we can thank for our freedom today. "Nicklin was sent overseas to Europe as part of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles and was then named the Commanding Officer of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion. He was one of the first Canadians to jump on D-Day in 1944, led his division in the Battle of the Bulge and was among the first to jump into Germany as part of Operation Varsity in March of 1945. Alas, his chute got tangled up in a tree and he was shot and killed as he tried to wrestle free. As a tribute to Nicklin, the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion donated the Jeff Nicklin Memorial Trophy to the Western Interprovincial Football Union in 1946, and it is awarded annually to the top player in the Canadian Football League’s West Division."

Yes, you. I’ll add him in.

I must cop to an error on my part. Rigney did play defensive tackle, but his awards WERE for his work as an o-lineman. I confused his bio with D-I-c-k Huffman, who also played both ways, and in fact HE won an all-star nod as both an offensive and defensive player in the same year. Rigney will be pulled from the defensive tackle list. Thanks for auditting me.

Good call, John Helton could also be in the running for top 2. Even though he did more damage as a Stampeder early in his career, his Bomber legacy is still quite impressive (kind of like Gretzky’s LA Kings legacy - nowhere near his Oiler glory but on its own still remarkable). And I think some experts put Helton above Brown for greatest in CFL history. 9 time CFL all-star, 12 time divisional all-star, 2 time CFL defensive player/lineman of the year.

So here is a preliminary list of defensive tackles to consider. The first 4 are older players who played both ways and could easily fall into the “offensive tackle” position, so if you think they are misplaced here, speak up. D-I-c-k Huffman, Buddy Tinsley (may be more well known as an o-lineman), Steve Patrick, Frank Rigney (definitely an o-lineman but also was an all-star multiple times as a defensive tackle). Also John Helton, Stan Mikawos, Joe Fleming, Doug Brown, Denny Fortney, and Bryant Turner Jr. List compiled based on all-star nominations. Anyone missed, or anyone who shouldn’t be here?

One man's take: Herb Gray, as I said, is a runaway winner here, or certainly should be. I pray he does not suffer from recency bias, because like Rod Hill at cornerback, Greg Battle at middle linebacker and Ty Jones at outside linebacker, he is head and shoulders above the competition. 6 straight all-star nods and 7 overall is unparalleled on this or almost any club at this position. Bomber defensive player of the half century, 'nuff said. And all the team success to boot. One of the greatest players on the greatest Bomber era of all. Vote him in, people. As for #2, there is no clear favourite. I will put them in groups, but not necessarily worst to first. The older guard: Nicklin and Marquandt both played in the 30's and 40's when the role of a defensive lineman was different, and two-way players were the standard. Impossible to compare eras in this way, and the important tackle and sack stats did not exist, so I cannot properly judge. What I can say in Nicklin's case is that he's the only Bomber with a league trophy named after him, and my everlasting respect and gratitude for his military service. God bless. Whisler in the 60's and Heighton in the 70's both had strong achievements in all-star nom and league award areas, and again the lack of tackle or sack stats make it hard to grade them against the others. A lack of team success for most of both of their careers lowers their profile. I would encourage any who saw them play to give them a fair shout out, as I cannot. So I am not dismissing their merits, I simply cannot judge them fairly and don't have a league success or "Legend" context to categorize them in like Herb Gray, so I will not personally consider them as my second choice. Of the remaining 7 players I have seen, here is how I view them: Pete Catan - with Tony Norman on the other side, gave the early '80's Bombers a great outside push on the line (both players had multiple 10+sack seasons playing together). He gets bonus points for being a model rocket enthusiast who attached rockets to his helmet at practice and fired them off into the stands on occasion. But he played for fewer years and had smaller stats that his teammate Tony, so he will not make the top 2. Odell Willis and Jamaal Westerman - both were very impressive in short spurts, and their sack totals look impressive for the limited number of career games they played, but each loses out to me because they just weren't here long enough and 40-some games is not the stuff of an all-timer for me. Willis may gain or lose points depending on your perspective of the whole "Mayor of Swaggerville" phenomenon (if you like or dislike trash talk and boasting with your play). Tom Canada - People loved his motor, but I wonder if he would be a fan favourite if his name was "Tom Germany" or some other country's moniker? Still, he put up some good numbers but just below the stats and all-star noms of the remaining 3, so I put him just behind them. That leaves me with 3 co-favourites for one spot, and any of these 3 would be a fine choice. Starting with: The Dark Horse: Gavin Walls - does not have the name recognition of the other 2, and pure reputation carries a lot of weight when voting on all-time best. But I look at his numbers and they speak well to his talent, overall skill set and athleticism. Bigger tackle numbers per games played than the others, and big fumble return yards and TDs speak of his speed off the edge and nose for the ball, and he had more sacks in fewer games (1.5 season's worth) than Mike Gray. Playing in a dead era of Bomber football, devoid of team success, probably sinks his chances to be considered, but he was consistently strong from start to almost finish of his time here. Maybe deserves a better fate than #4 in my ranking, but that is where I put him. The Immaculate: Mike Gray will forever be known for one play. He could live to be 200 years old, and in his obituary the first line will read "The Immaculate Interception". This cuts 2 ways, as it raises his street cred and his profile more than all other players and gives him a voting boost (winning an MVP award in a Grey Cup should count for more when measuring achievements, though), but may hurt him for those who believe he isn't more than that one play. Well, #1 in tackles, #2 in fumble recoveries and Grey Cup appearances, #3 in games played, sacks, and Grey Cups won, and #4 in seasons played put him near the top of most categories when compared to his competition on this list. Never a team nominee for defensive player of the year, but when your competition is Battle, West, Jones, Hill and Payton, just being a known name with that group speaks volumes. Again, only one divisional all-star nod hurts his cause. Depending on my mood, could slot below Walls or ahead of Norman, so split the difference and put him at #3 all-time. The foundation for greatness: Tony Norman - as Speedflex will agree, we are drawn to those we grow up watching first when we look at our perceived "best ever", so like his justifiable promotion of 70's players not to be overlooked, I was weaned on the early '80's stars and have a bias for them. Tony Norman straddled those two eras, and brought the Bomber defence back to prominence as the team returned to glory in 1984. He defined what a rush end should be in that era, and was to the d-line what Jones and Brown were to the linebacking corps at that time. Most sacks by far of any player on this list whose stats were recorded, and shouldn't that be the biggest criteria to consider for a rush end? Had the longevity and sustained success (3 straight all-star nods) to warrant consideration for all-timer. Never "the" superstar, but more than a solid contributor his whole time here. But for all the talent around him, would have had a higher profile as "the leader" on most defences, IMO. And bonus points for officially ending the Eskimo dynasty (his 4th quarter sack, forced fumble, and fumble recovery all on one play against Warren Moon while being double-teamed was one of the most athletic plays I have ever witnessed live, and sealed the 1983 semi-final win against Edmonton and ended their 5 year reign as Grey Cup champions). The early voting seems to favour Norman, and I won't disagree with that sentiment, but if Gray and Gray ended up together, or Gavin Walls snuck in, I'd have no problem with that either. But again, Herb Gray, make it happen. Anything less than #1 in votes is an injustice to him.

Thanks

Is he a defensive tackle or end?

I'll give my full "one man's take" later, but if Herb Gray is not the runaway winner here, I don't know what to say to you people, or why I bothered with this poll in the first place. And he retired before I was born, so I never saw him play. But he is a legendary Bomber figure, so despite the position evolving and the inherent increase in physical skill and size of today's players, it is a crime if he is not on this team. With almost 90 years of history and glory years in the 1960's, we can't just have representation from the 1980's onward on this club. The second player may be a bit of a toss-up, with maybe 2 or 3 co-favorites but possibly 7 in contention jockeying for position. Stay tuned for my analysis.

Here are the bios. Vote for 2 of them: NOTE: Tackles were not recorded before 1987, so any tackle numbers will not be complete for players who played before that year. Sacks were not recorded before 1981, so any sack numbers will not be complete for players who played before that year. Tom Canada – 81 games in 5 seasons (2004-08), 1 int., 45 yards, 1 TD, 6 fumble recoveries, 0 yards, 171 tackles, 41 sacks, 2 time divisional all-star (2004, 07), team nominee Most Outstanding Rookie 2004, team nominee Most Outstanding Defensive player 2007, 2007 Grey Cup appearance Pete Catan – 41 games in 3 seasons (1981-83), 6 fumble recoveries, 26 yards, no tackle stats available, 26.5 sacks, 1982 divisional and CFL all-star, team nominee Most Outstanding Rookie 1981 Herb Gray – 156 games in 10 seasons (1956-65), 2 Int., 21 yards, 2 TD, 12 fumble recoveries, 42 yards, no tackle or sack stats available, 4 time team nominee most outstanding lineman (1957, 59, 60, 63), CFL Most Outstanding Lineman (1960), 7 time divisional all-star (1957-62, 65), 1962 CFL all-star (*first year a league wide all-star award was given in addition to the divisional award), 4 time Grey Cup Champion (1958, 59, 61, 62), 6 Grey Cup appearances (1957-59, 61, 62, 65), CFL Hall of Fame, Blue Bomber defensive player of the half century (1930-80) Michael Gray – 107 games in 7 seasons (1987-93), 9 fumble recoveries, 26 yards, 1 TD, 223 tackles, 43 sacks, 1989 divisional all-star, 1988 Grey Cup defensive MOP, 2 time grey Cup champion (1988, 90) , 4 Grey Cup appearances (1988, 90, 92, 93) Jim Heighton – 125 games in 8 seasons (1970-77), 1 Int., 26 yards, 9 fumble recoveries, 8 yards, 1TD, no tackle or sack totals available, 2 time divisional all-star (1972, 74), team nominee Most Outstanding defensive player 1974, 2 time team nominee Most Outstanding Canadian (1974, 76) Bud Marquandt – no stats available, bio reads: NDSU grad, 7 seasons (1935-41), 3 time divisional all-star (1937, 39, 40) as an end, 3 time Grey Cup champion (1935, 39, 41) Jeff Nicklin – no stats available, his bio reads: born and raised Winnipegger, 7 seasons (1934-40), 4 time divisional all-star (1937-38 as an outside wing, 1939-40 as a flying wing), also played halfback and end, 2 time Grey Cup Champion, military career with Royal Winnipeg Rifles and C.O. of 1st Cdn. Parachute Battalion, one of the first paratroopers who jumped on D-Day, killed in action in 1945, the Jeff Nicklin Memorial trophy is annually awarded to the Most Outstanding Player in the CFL Western Division. Tony Norman – 95 games in 7 seasons (1980-86), 1 Int., 3 yards, 7 fumble recoveries, 46 yards, no tackle totals available, 59 sacks, 3 time divisional all-star (1983-85), 1984 Grey Cup champion Gavin Walls – 82 games in 5 seasons (2005-09), 1 Int., 10 yards, 1 TD, 5 fumble recoveries, 114 yards, 2 TD, 197 tackles, 47 sacks, 3 time divisional all-star (2005,06,08), 2005 team nominee for Most Outstanding defensive player, 2005 CFL Rookie of the Year, 2007 Grey Cup appearance Jamaal Westerman – 47 games in 3 seasons (2015-17), 127 tackles, 32 sacks, 2015 divisional, CFL, and CFLPA all-star, 2015 team nominee for Outstanding Player and Outstanding defensive player, and 2015 Western nominee for outstanding Canadian player Bill Whisler – 108 games in 8 seasons (1962-69), 4 Int., 20 yards, 8 fumble recoveries, 32 yards, no tackle or sack totals available, 4 time divisional all-star (1964, 67-69), 2 time team nominee Most Outstanding Lineman (1964, 67), Grey Cup Champion (1962), 2 Grey Cup appearances (1962, 65) Odell Willis – 43 games in 3 seasons (2009-11), 1 fumble recovery, 0 yards, 67 tackles, 28 sacks, 2010 CFLPA all-star, 2011 divisional and CFL all-star, 2011 Grey Cup appearance

OK, a few hours left to vote on inside linebackers, but declaring Greg Battle and Barrin Simpson as the winners there. Will post the defensive ends now, and put up a list of potential nominees for defensive (nose) tackles next. For the defensive ends, pared the list down to 12. Removed Grant and Korchak from the list as per Stats Junkie's recommendations, also pulled Loyd Lewis and Daved Benefield as they had limited time with the Bombers (one strong season each but no longevity) and much longer careers in many other places, and maybe most controversially pulled Phillip Hunt, who had one monster season with the club and led the league in sacks with 17 (but was nothing more than a team nominee for defensive player and other than the sack totals was not a game changer), but only played a season and a half with the club in total and then headed off to the NFL. One season does not an all-timer make, in my view. There will be 12 to choose from.

Even if a bipartisan bill is passed in both houses, does it not require the President to sign off on? If he refuses to sign a bill agreed to by Republicans that does not include wall funding, what is the next step to get around him (my knowledge of the procedures of US politics is somewhat hazy, need a primer from this guy I guess).

So now that the televised plea and counter-argument have occurred, with the subsequent 2 minute candy meeting and walkout yesterday, what is the next step for each party, and what is the end-game for each? For Trump, he has 2 acceptable options for him it seems. Compromising and backing off his wall is not one of them, and his history of lawsuits as a private businessman suggests that he will drag this out as long as he can and try to bury the other side with deep pockets. Unlike his business days, where he could afford expensive litigation to tire out the other side, the money this time is the lack of paychecks for Government workers, he can outlast them. So he can (a) just ride this out until the other side blinks (does he really care if it kills his chances of re-election, especially if we believe that he never wanted the gig n the first place and this was just a branding experiment gone horribly wrong?), or (b) declare a national emergency and get his funding without compromise. Although funny that it was pointed out (on CNN) that he says he will not declare an emergency as long as he thinks he can work out a deal, but will do so "if the other side proves to be unreasonable", and they raised the proper question "since by definition an emergency is an urgent situation, how can he delay action now and then say later it is an emergency when he has sat on his hands for so long with no change in conditions?" For Democrats, do they have options other than (a) hold fast and watch the workers suffer, hoping they win the PR battle over whose fault it is, or (b) compromise and agree to wall funding to get government open again? Tough sell on option (a) if they keep touting that they are the party wanting to work out this problem. What concessions can they make to show that they are being reasonable without giving in fully? Or do they have a third nuclear option? That being, push hard for impeachment now? They have plenty of ammo to do it already, how would it play out if they now said "on top of everything else, we now have a leader who doesn't want to lead anymore, wants to shut down the government, keep it shut, and walks away from any meeting without any effort to fix the problems of his own making. So if he doesn't want to be a leader, maybe it's time to remove him from office and find someone who does?" Does that ploy work, and could it be their ace in the hole, much like Trump's "emergency funding" ace in the hole? What do Republicans do? It seems they are trying to concoct a new scenario where they offer DACA relief to the Dems like they so long wanted, in exchange for border wall money. This may be seen by the public as the best compromise. The Dems look weak if they give in, but look petty and vindictive with a purely political agenda if they don't take what they have advocated for which is now being offered. It makes them more about beating Trump than solving problems. So thoughts on what the next moves are?

Thanks again for digging through the archives for very useful information. Regarding the changing of stats based on current conventions - I know Elfrid Payton always felt gypped (mildly) about his sack totals because he ended up with 154 to Covington's 157, and the rules changed during Payton's career so that if a QB fumbled when he was hit, they would only record the forced fumble but not a sack, like they did previously. Payton lost a few sacks because he was so good at stripping the ball from the QB when he tackled them. If the QBs were better at protecting the ball, or if the rule was consistent either way, Payton would have the all-time record (either he would have registered more sacks if sack and forced fumble could both happen on the same play, or if Covington lost sacks due to forced fumbles on his plays that counted as both).