TrueBlue4ever

KBF - "From Hell's heart I stab at thee!!!" 1D - "I'm sorry, were you saying something?" https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.WHTWW1bZli%2bBj7r3yBQY8Q&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.YGtrwCxcg52WR6ujmL4E4A&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.a1oB7TENBwvvPPD2kszSCQ&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.idH3bg0W2NX9xfWFjH7hCg&pid=15.1&P=0

20 years ago maybe but Cole is an old man now and can't keep up with the play, he spends most of the games now hoping that he is sitting in the pie. Yeah Cole is so past his prime, it's not even funny. He's got to retire. Sadly, whichever yahoo who replaces him won't be any better. It's just disgusting. You might be pleasantly surprised to hear Jets Tsn TV feed guy Dennis Beyak announce a game. He has done some Olympic broadcasts as well. The TSN Radio Jets guys Brian Munz and Paul Edmonds are good, very good. But for football, I'm totally comfortable with Knuckles. Big fan of Edmonds, I wish he would do the TV play by play for the Jets. Beyak is better suited to a national telecast though. He has that non partisan "classic" play by play voice. Edmonds is great with his lines and when he gets excited. Works best when you are doing play by play for a targeted "home" team. Edmonds - not a fan. Can't stand him, actually. His wordiness was great as a baseball play-by-play guy where you have to fill a lot of dead air between plays, but in hockey he needs to learn to be much more minimalist. He is usually calling "SCORE!" 4-5 seconds after the goal has gone in, and he is too homerish for my tastes. Those attempts at catch phrases also fall flat with me. Fortunately, I watch all the games on Jets TV, so unless I'm stuck in my car, don't have to listen to him. Munz was decent if a bit excitable, not sure why they bumped him in favour of Edmonds. Beyak is top-notch and, like Irving with the Bombers, can be professional and impartial, but still give that extra bit of attention to the home side without being an unabashed and biased cheerleader.

Some NSFW subtitles, but hilarious otherwise.

If I could dumb it down any further for you I would have.

- a counterpoint to the "the Grey Cup drought has made people too negative and impatient, especially those who never saw a Grey Cup win" theory - this theory suggests that not experiencing a winner has in fact made those searching for positives too desperate too accept anything as positive - the lengthy drought has made people too hypersensitive on both sides - excessive negativity is a problem on the boards, but the worse problem are those who are willing to accept mediocrity and chafe at any criticisms, over-exaggerating it into a false label of "sky is falling" syndrome, all in the sake of finding positives - all of the losing in the last 25 years has led to more negative posts overall in sheer numbers, which is attributed incorrectly as rampant "negation"posting - attacking those with different viewpoints becomes more important than debating and analyzing the actual problems with the team - the team's long-standing mediocrity has lowered expectations for some, where "moral victories" have replaced actual victories as acceptable -finding positives in losses is the new normal, vs. the 1980's where every loss was open to criticism but not subject to overreaction -this mirrors current society, where "participation"medals have replaced actual achievement so we can feel good about ourselves and settle for celebrating mediocrity rather than striving for true excellence -this is also analogous to reading a Cole's notes version as a substitute for reading a full post, seeing it as just as complete and relevant when all it really is is laziness - the short-term solution is to avoid posting for 24 hours after a game when emotion trumps logic -the long term solution is to realize that you will have another game to replace the angst over the past one

I get the sense that it works the other way too in terms of expectations. I can see how fans who have never seen a winner get down on the team more easily than they might if we had had that breakthrough. But on the other side of it, because many fans have never seen the top of the mountain, moral victories after a loss like in Calgary suffice, and the "positive" fans will rip the "negative" ones (I hate these labels, BTW, but will use them for argument's sake) for being all doom and gloom. Objectivity has been lost on both sides. I am on the far side of 45, and started following the team around the 50th anniversary season. Became a "true" fan (understood the game, knew the players, could rattle off the stats, etc.) right around the 1984 season. Pretty damn fine time to become a fan, let me tell you. That team is still the best all-around team I have ever seen, hands down. Fans who witnessed the mirage of 2001 may see that as the high water mark, but they had nothing on the dominance of that '84 team. Not only would they not lose at home, they would simply crush every team that came into Winnipeg. Every loss on the road was a disappointment, because this team expected to win all the time, and so did its fans. A loss would have received the same criticism as it would today, but the debate would not spiral into the "sky is falling" hystrionics that some "negatrons" do throw out there (because they've seen the same movie so many times before) or that some "positrons" falsely accused the critics of throwing out there (I'd argue there are a greater number of false complaints from the positive side about how defeatist the comments from the critics are, rather than the actual number of defeatist comments themselves, and then the fight is on again, but to be fair it is easier to be negative with all the failures of the past 25 years, so I get that can grate on those who want to believe in this team). I am not happy about the loss and don't wish to find positives in it. Does this make me a negatron who thinks we need to blow up the team yet again? Absolutely not. I like the direction we are going in, and know that losses happen, so no need to get too low after one and paint the whole season or regime with a bad brush. In the same breath, no need to say all is well after a win. Just like we gave this game away with dumb mistakes and can feel positive with outplaying Calgary, so too could you argue Montreal did the same to us last week but for the punt block and pick-6 INT. But I will pick apart the mistakes made and not just accept it as growing pains, and say we are moving forwards in spite of it. A loss is not a step forward. If you truly believe that, then your expectations are way too low, and the club will have no motivation to get better since they feel no pressure to respond to a fan base that has minimal expectations. Bottom line, I have seen a truly great team in the Cal Murphy era that never accepted losing well, did not look for "moral victories", and would call out mistakes on stuff like running punts backwards, time count violations, 107 yard drives where our line was dominated, and brutal turnovers at the worst time without trying to gloss them over. That's what I grew up on and that's how I view the loss. No excuses. That's not "sky is falling" mentality, it's "play like a champion and expect to be a champion" which was the spirit of this team in the 80's and early 90's. It was a different world, both in sports and in life. Coaches were the ones in charge, not the players. Bad play would get you benched, size of your paycheck be damned. Graduation was reserved for grade 12, not every year. You got ribbons and medals for winning, not just for participating. Mediocrity was not cause for a celebration. As for what can be done about this for the old-timers, my solution for myself in the short term is to avoid posting for 24 hours after a game, win or loss, since the boards are ruled by emotion and not common sense, objectivity is out the window, and too many are too concerned with attacking those with an opposite viewpoint rather than actually debating the merits of the point being made. Long term, realize that next week is another game, so this one can be forgotten soon enough.

Funny, in the other post you call those who pointed out the mistakes of the Bombers trolls who "only ooze out from under the bridge after a loss to bash everything", but this is a good synopsis? Double standard much?

On the contrary that eliminates the QB sprint to the corner. You can't lump Marve in with Goltz that easily. For all of Goltz's faults... he was actually pretty money in the redzone (just couldn't actually get the ball into the redzone) Ummm....isn't that an oxymoron, like military intelligence or feminine logic? OH, you're goin' to hell for that one! I prefer "pretty ugly" or "Rider pride".

I was watching Bob McCown the other day and one of the guys on the show was saying that once the Jays came to town it hurt the Argos because now Torontonians think they are too good for the CFL. "Who wants to see Toronto play a team from Saskatchewan when I can watch Toronto play the New York Yankees". Different sports of course, but the guy sounded like a typical Toronto putz and exactly the kind of person that makes sure Canada stays united in its universal hatred of Toronto. And it's so funny because, to me, the reason I love the CFL as much as I do, is for the regional rivalries. I don't give two shits about a team from New York, but I care a whole hell of a lot about the province next door. Maybe I'm not a good sports fan because I don't care as much about Best On Best and maybe I'm too patriotic, but for me, the real beauty of the CFL is how strictly CANADIAN it is... It's the same for me. The big draw of the CFL is that it's local. Who gives a **** about New York or California or where ever else in the States? Give me a team I can be invested in because it's regional. I actually think the bad sports fans are the ones who only care about the biggest most over hyped teams/sports. NFL has this problem and it's also why I refuse to follow it despite loving football. The amount of hype is disproportionate to the actual excitement of the game. ******* Americans, gotta ruin everything by trying to make every game the greatest game in the history of our sport! Hey, hey, don't disrespect the NFL! They are the "world" champions, after all.

I'd like to take a receiver just to be different, but that burned me last week with taking Green over Sutton, so Cornish it is. Now if Marquay McDaniel gets a TD, I'll be right p*ssed.

I disagree... I think the pass is very much in play with Marve... having Willy makes it 2-dimensional: pass or hand-off... Marve makes it 3-dimensional: hand-off, QB run or pass In theory, sure. But in actuality when Marve has come in the overwhelmingly dominant play is QB cut left or right and try to dive between the guard and the tackle. After that has failed 2 or 3 times it has been hand-off to Marshall. Pass is never his first option (which kind of defeats the purpose of calling him a QB). Even his one attempted pass this year in that scenario was out of a run play on a sprint to the corner goal line which got shut off, and the pass itself?.......Yikes! Far too predictable at this point, and has been that way since the start of last season. Not sure if it a play-calling issue (they don't like the pass game down close) or a personnel issue (either the team or Marve doesn't like/trust his passing ability in that situation, or he and they know he'll abandon his progressions and just look to run at first instance), but Marve has consistently shown he is more comfortable with his feet than with his arm at QB in any situation, much less short yardage, where there have been no surprises as to what play is coming. And other teams appear to be catching on this year.

I'm all for the 2 point try, but with Willy and not Marve making the plays. At least offers the illusion that we might throw the ball.

Let's not forget that when Walby played, his size and weight were the huge exception, and not the rule. In his 1984 season, the average height and weight of the o-line (not including him) was 6'3", 244 lbs and he was 6'7", 331 lbs. He was 76 lbs heavier than the next biggest guy. When he retired in 1996 the avg. without him was 6'4", 279 lbs and only 1 other o-lineman was over 300 lbs. Dave Vankoughnett played at 240 lbs. Today, our starters average 6'4", 307 lbs, and everyone (starters and back-ups) is 300+ lbs and with the exception of Picard is 6'4" or taller. Add to that more advanced, harder padding and improved fitness, and everyone moves much faster and hits a ton harder as a result. Just that much more mass coming at you.

I see Paul Friesen is amused by the debate about whether or not the Bombers got "jobbed" on this call and put it in today's paper. He went on to say that all the complaining by Bomber fans about the missed non-TD call was not equally matched by an uproar over the Bomber punt block TD where the kicker got contacted and there was no penalty. While I don't normally get wrapped up in the ongoing Friesen hate-on around here and don't have an axe to grind against his reporting personally, and although I recognize the point that he is trying to make is that as homers we only see things one way, I'd just like to say that if he is going to use the paper to take a shot across the bow at fans then he had better be on solid ground factually. SO, Paul, if you are reading, and think that because the player who contacted the kicker was NOT the one who blocked the kick [as covered in Rule 7, section 1, article 2b allowing contact if you WERE the one who blocked the kick], that means there should be a penalty and the refs missed that one, look at Rule 5, section 4, article 5b which basically allows contact to the punter by any player once a player of the receiving first touched the ball, so there is no longer any protection afforded the punter who is just another live player who can be blocked. Hence the reason we aren't equally up in arms over that "missed" call - it wasn't a missed call.

I thought the same thing at the time, but the rule was changed in 2014 (hence the reason it is not in the outdated rule book - get with the program, cfl.ca!) when coaches were given the opportunity to challenge pass interference. As long as a coach still has a timeout available they can throw a challenge flag on pass interference in the last 3 minutes of the game. Thanks to Bob Irving for that clarification BTW.

When overtime was introduced in 2000, they had a loser point for teams that made it to OT but lost. It encouraged teams to play for ties and try to get a bonus point in OT. That year 7 games went to OT, with 2 ending tied and Hamilton losing two games in overtime that year. It was worse in 2002, when 8 games went into OT and 3 teams (Calgary, Saskatchewan and Ottawa) each had 2 OT losses. The loser point was scrapped the next year. Don't recall a team losing 2 consecutive games in OT though, but it may have happened.

I was at the game, all of the replays they showed on the jumbotron offered no conclusive proof to overturn the call. we figured they didn't have a good camera angle to show. Then watched the highlights later and the "watch him run into the camera man" shot right at the goalline was shown and that would have offered clear evidence that he was NOT in. Wondering if that angle was available to the review officials at the time?

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked. If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. So you're saying he just stuck the tip in? http://happylalove.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Thats-what-she-said.jpg

It's funny how irked some people get over petty stuff like this.

2 stinkin' yards away. Mother ****er!

SJ Green

Yeah this is what I do on twitter too. because Im at work all day, I mostly come here for news but I like the immediately info of twitter. So I flip through and see nothing (or like I said earlier at least something like Bob commenting on Willy's throws) then so be it. But seeing them basically mock the desire of hardcore fans is a slap in the face. Im sure the reporters and their editors have a good laugh but my boss wouldnt think it was very funny if I tweeted that I was barely working today or nothing to do at work today. Isn't the fact that you are typing on a public football fan blog in the middle of your work day doing just that (unless your job is related to covering the Bombers and their interaction with the fans)? Yes. Dont tell my boss. It'll be our secret.

But most of that is also stuff that only caters to the already obsessed. That is one way of looking at it. The other way is that the daily Bomber reports in the papers are already a solid 30% filler - I'd give an example if I had a paper in front of me - and this is far more interesting than any of that nonsense. So why not use this instead to pad the word count? I'll agree that the paper stuff is a lot of filler, but why would that make a random blurb in 140 characters any less filler? Marve not getting many reps - yeah, he's 3rd string, so don't need a tweet telling me that. Other guys kicking field goals - makes sense that there is a back-up plan if Lirim Holy-crap-that-last name-is-hard-to-spell goes down mid-game. And if I really need to know who it is, I'll call in the coach's show and get the answer. Kohlert practicing with the #1's? Well, since they declared he was back from the injured list and would start this week in Monday's paper and radio reports, the proposed tweet tells me nothing that basic intelligence would let me presume in the first place. The innocent version of the off-hand tweets is that this is just another regular practice with nothing unusual to see, but for those dying to know something, know that it is business as usual, no one out of or back in unexpectedly due to injury, no one struggling. I suspect it may be a subtle "shot" at the obsessed fans who crave every crumb of detail (on this site or otherwise) and if it that offensive to those fans, they can choose to tune out the coverage in favour of an alternative or voice a formal complaint. But there are new rules with the instant world of 21st Century media coverage. "Get it right" has been replaced with "get it first", and the old rules of "if it bleeds it leads", "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story", and "it doesn't matter if the readers/listeners love you or hate you, just make sure they are talking about you". And those 2 tweets have already filled 3 pages of a fan blog on a Wednesday afternoon. Mission accomplished, I'd say.

Yeah this is what I do on twitter too. because Im at work all day, I mostly come here for news but I like the immediately info of twitter. So I flip through and see nothing (or like I said earlier at least something like Bob commenting on Willy's throws) then so be it. But seeing them basically mock the desire of hardcore fans is a slap in the face. Im sure the reporters and their editors have a good laugh but my boss wouldnt think it was very funny if I tweeted that I was barely working today or nothing to do at work today. Isn't the fact that you are typing on a public football fan blog in the middle of your work day doing just that (unless your job is related to covering the Bombers and their interaction with the fans)?

In case you missed it, this is not my thread, and, of course, not everybody has to, or is obliged to do anything. But rest assured your name will be at the top of the list of non-supporters. I didn't miss the point that you didn't start the thread. But I also didn't miss the fact that YOU suggested that MBB write a letter "on behalf of its 700 members" disparaging the coverage the media gives the team and our collective disgust with it. Of course we are not obliged to do anything as you say, but if one form letter is going out from MBB it gives the appearance that everyone agrees - at least that is the intention of sending the letter from the entity rather than you sending one individually yourself. The disclaimer just points out that there is not universal agreement in your position that you are advocating on behalf of the entire membership of MBB.