TrueBlue4ever

Simple math, there are 9 teams so one team has to sit out each week, since we play each team twice (at least) every team gets 2 byes over the course of the year. Impossible to eliminate one bye per team unless the schedule has that goofy "sandwich a third game mid-week between the 2 normal weekend games" stretch and make every CFL team do it. Easiest way to shorten the season and keep a reasonable schedule with reasonable rest (i.e. 6-8 days) between games: shorten the season to 16 games. Every team plays every team twice (one home, one road) and gets 2 byes. 18 week schedule instead of 20. Season starts Canada Day week (last game of the week played no later than July 1), Labour Day week therefore is week 10, regular season is done before Halloween, playoffs end no later than November 18 every year. This is how it was before 1986 (they actually had 4 pre-season games then too, but it was felt that 4 exhibition games were too many and weren't profitable enough to justify the expense). Of course, extra "real" games mean extra revenue, so the league will not ever want to shorten the schedule back to 16.

Im a sucker for family reunion. I hope KW trade for him. Two words - Cauchy Muamba.

So do Portis and Yantz. I'd wager $10 million of Yourface's internet dollars that we won't see all 5 QB's play on Friday.

Damage control, perhaps? More likely "can you believe what the stupid people on the internet are saying? Let's put that to rest" Even more likely "can you believe what my stupid agent let slip before the season while I still have a year left on my contract? Better do some damage control and try to put this to rest before cuts come". Either Marve wants out and his agent is passing on that truth to the club, the agent spoke out of turn without Marve's knowledge, or Marve's agent tried to use the NFL ploy to leverage a bigger number from the Bombers, who didn't bite. Whatever the circumstance, the story that has gotten out is that Marve's plan for now is to bolt at year's end. If true, then the club has to ask itself if it is going to use a third string QB roster spot on a non-project who won't be at camp next year even if he fails in the NFL (since their camp won't go until late summer, he is not here in 2016 regardless). If false, then this is definitely damage control by Marve since he hasn't been handed the back-up spot that some here believe is (and maybe he expected should be) his and not Brohm's. Good digging M.O.A.B.

And others are acting like Marve should be considered the starter for the Bombers now. My point is simply: A) the noise out of camp from the media is that Brohm is the clear #2, both in how he's performed (although some posters here see things quite differently from their viewpoint at practice - I'm not going to say which assessment is the more accurate one), and in what the intentions of the coaching staff are (at least how the media have portrayed it so far), so Marve is at best the #3, which usually is reserved for a developmental future project and not a player intended to supplant the current starter by week 9, and whether or not he fails in the NFL, his intention NOW is that he doesn't want to stay and play in Winnipeg, even though his contract says he can't go anywhere else for this year, so one has to wonder if that lack of desire to be here will keep him from wanting to return to Winnipeg as a free agent after a failed NFL run. I have little faith that Marve will score an NFL spot, but if his attitude is that the Bombers are not his priority, why keep him holding a clipboard this year over a QB who will be invested in growing his game with the team beyond this season? Sorry, that smiley face should be a capital b with parentheses. Stupid emoticons!

And others are acting like Marve should be considered the starter for the Bombers now. My point is simply: A) the noise out of camp from the media is that Brohm is the clear #2, both in how he's performed (although some posters here see things quite differently from their viewpoint at practice - I'm not going to say which assessment is the more accurate one), and in what the intentions of the coaching staff are (at least how the media have portrayed it so far), so Marve is at best the #3, which usually is reserved for a developmental future project and not a player intended to supplant the current starter by week 9, and whether or not he fails in the NFL, his intention NOW is that he doesn't want to stay and play in Winnipeg, even though his contract says he can't go anywhere else for this year, so one has to wonder if that lack of desire to be here will keep him from wanting to return to Winnipeg as a free agent after a failed NFL run. I have little faith that Marve will score an NFL spot, but if his attitude is that the Bombers are not his priority, why keep him holding a clipboard this year over a QB who will be invested in growing his game with the team beyond this season?

For all the love Marve gets on this board, the repeated message from the media and what the coaches tell them is that Brohm has basically been locked into the #2 position barring some major collapse, and with Marve flat out saying he's leaving for the NFL next year, I can't fathom the club using up what amounts to a developmental roster spot on a guy who wants to bolt at season's end. I know his scrambling and enthusiasm score big on the emotional love scale from the fans, but keeping him doesn't seem to be the logical move unless he's the clear #2 and pushing for top spot, which by all accounts from those who make the decisions, he isn't.

I've heard it on the radio (either the talking heads / Bauming on 1290 or Irving) mention that Richards had dealt with concussions playing university ball .. not saying that's what this injury is .. have no idea what's keeping him out of the lineup to be honest .. but I have heard similar things. How could he have gotten a concussion after 2 days of rookie camp? Again, I'm not suggesting that this IS what it is .. just confirming that I've heard he's dealt with this in the past .. that said, concussions are tricky things .. if you have a history of concussions .. something seemingly innocuous can trigger symptoms .. but the kicker is that every person responds differently .. hell, it's not even big shots that guys have to worry about .. it's repeated small blows that add up, over time, that cause damage. I *WILL* repeat myself .. not suggesting Richards is dealing with a concussion .. just confirming that I've heard the same thing as another poster. I heard one reporter (think it was Tait, but possibly Wiecek) on the radio saying that he wasn't even participating in stationary catching drills for 4-5 days, then getting only underhand tosses from Howell, and it struck the reporter that this looked suspiciously like he was going through the week-long post-concussion protocol regimen. Again, only second-hand heresay, so take that for its limited worth.

I'm not sure how I feel. I understand your point of view but I also believe that the CFL and NFL have been less than responsible when it comes to brain injuries and they should have to answer for that. I see your point as well. But these guys know that concussions are an issue in this sport. And most guys don't have the patience to wait until their completely healed before they go back onto the field, because they just want to get back out there. At the same time, if the doctor is saying you're cleared to play, then that's wrong as well. But you can't put all the blame on them. But suing for $200 million? Even $100 million would ruin the CFL, and pretty much ruin the careers of all current and future football players, coaches, etc... The issues need to be addressed, but suing the league is not the way to fix the issue. It's a way to line your pockets. Banks isn't looking out for anyone else but himself. It's a class-action lawsuit, he is just leading it. In a way, he is actually sticking his neck out for the benefit of possibly hundreds of players. If the guy leading a class action suit has no class and doesn't see any action, I don't see this going very far. If Matt Dunigan signed on to this lawsuit, would opinions around here change?

Our media is embarrassing. Holy hell.I'm comfortable putting a twenty down it was Weicek.I couldn't see who asked the question, but it sounded like Bauming, which would surprise me because he's usually on the ball. But could have been someone else too.Sonofa...great. Well June's as good a month as any to ration diapers. Let the baby dookie on the lawn. If he's going to try and flip blame for his screw-up on the Bombers, why not make a crack that he's not used to having learn the names of more than 7 coaches.I asked Bauming about it on Twitter and it was him. I sure hope he thanked you after you asked that question. So, mbrg, when can I expect that twenty? Weekend is here, you know.

The Banjo Bowl game was not as close as the score indicates. The 'Riders were up 27-8 at the half as a result of a blocked field goal touchdown return and a Dressler punt return TD because of an absolutely brutal missed call by the refs on a blatant hold. The Bombers only got back into it when Durant got knocked out with the elbow injury. But the 'Riders exposed the bad o-line (5 sacks) and weak run defence (196 yards, 6.3 yards per carry) that gave every other team a blueprint on how to beat Winnipeg for the rest of the year. Only a late fumble gave the Bombers a chance to steal the win, but Willy threw deep on first down and overthrew the receiver for an INT. Another late turnover gave him another shot, but this pass was even more forced and another INT. To be fair, he was being rushed all second half on his passes due to poor protection, but those throws were on him (which he admitted afterwards). Hopefully he won't be shell-shocked from all of the hits he took last year and he will display the patience he showed in the early comeback wins, and it goes without saying the line protection needs to be 100% better this year to give him any chance. Sounds to me like you described a close game.... It doesn't matter that the Riders were up at half time, this is the CFL, we've seen it countless times where one team can come out hard at first but then the game winds up close. Games are 60 minutes long for a reason. The run D problems were only really a problem on Labour Day. For all the rushing yards in the other games the Riders didn't have much to show for it and it was Bomber turnovers on offense or special teams play that did more damage on the scoreboard than the Riders running the ball. Run D was a problem against Saskatchewan all year, and their success gave other teams a simple game plan to beat us the rest of the way throughout the season. Don't equate rushing TD's as the only measure of success in a run game. Ability to control the clock, wear down the defence, keep the opposing team's offence off the field, and physically and psychologically beat down the opponent with a power game by controlling the line of scrimmage battle. And as for the 'Riders "not having much to show for" all of their rushing yards, they did have 3 wins and 0 losses against Winnipeg last year to show for it, so there's that. Actually, in terms of yards allowed, the Labour Day game was the Bombers best against the 'Riders. The stats for the year bear out the argument that Saskatchewan exposed the Bomber run game and other teams followed suit after that as a simple game plan to follow to beat us. Week 1 vs Tor: 42 yards/8 carries (5.25 avg.) Week 2 vs Ott: 86 yards/18 carries (4.78 avg.) Week 3 at Mtl: 102 yards/22 carries (4.64 avg.) Week 4 vs Edm: 192 yards/30 carries (6.40 avg.) - NOTE: QB Mike Reilly accounted for 96 of those yards Week 5 at BC: 100 yards/20 carries (5.00 avg.) Week 6 at Ham: 49 yards/12 carries (4.08 avg.) Week 7 vs Sask: 186 yards/29 carries (6.41 avg.) Week 8 at Tor: 174 yards/25 carries (6.96 avg.) Week 9 vs Mtl: 91 yards/25 carries (3.64 avg.) Week 10 at Sask: 160 yards/29 carries (5.52 avg.) Week 11 vs Sask: 196 yards/31 carries (6.32 avg.) Week 12 at BC: 163 yards/26 carries (6.27 avg.) Week 14 vs Ham: 58 yards/11 carries (5.27 avg.) Week 15 at Ott: 188 yards/24 carries (7.83 avg.) Week 16 at Edm: 155 yards/29 carries (5.34 avg.) Week 17 vs Cal: 195 yards/30 carries (6.50 avg.) Week 18 vs BC: 95 yards/28 carries (3.39 avg.) Week 19 at Cal: 217 yards/24 carries (9.04 avg.) Saying that run D was only a problem in the Labour Day game is shortsighted, in my view.

And this is why, even though I'll defend Joe Mack in a lot of areas, I will always say his greatest flaw was hiring coaches... I will disagree strongly here. I'm not going to jump up and down and praise Tim Burke, so no one try to twist my words here, but remember that he was handed the position as head coach after LaPolice was fired. He was not hired to be the head coach, he inherited the position, and as the defensive coach many of the same posters on this board who rip him now loved him and felt he should take over from LaPolice before the firing occurred. He was handed a sinking ship by an obstinate GM who bristled at any perceived or actual criticism (true story: I was invited to a pre-season Bomber luncheon where Bob Irving was emceeing and he referenced the struggles of the 2012 season to the crowd and said "Good luck Joe Mack, hopefully we'll see better times ahead this year". Mack barked back "Gee, thanks, Bob" in the most dismissive, sarcastic way he could, and then under his breath - but not so quietly that I couldn't hear him the next table over - something that sounded a lot like "glass bowl") and stubbornly held to the belief that his way, which was opposite to everyone else's thinking, had to be the right way. Burke had seen Mack throw LaPo under the bus for his failed roster, saw the players assembled by Mack not giving any effort, and decided to preserve his own future career by calling out those lazy players. Unprofessional, sure, but it was in keeping with the whole tone of the organization at that time. A Bomber beat reporter went into the locker room after a tough loss just before the week long bye (this was I believe just before LaPo got the axe) and said that 25% percent of the players were upset about the loss, 25% were laughing and goofing off, talking about where they were going to go drinking that night, and 50% had their packed bags with them and were talking about their plans for the week off starting that minute. That tells you a lot about the attitude and commitment of that team right there. That assembling of "talent" falls on Joe Mack and Joe Mack alone, who though bringing in "athletes" and not football players was the way to build a team. Burke did not rise above that mess, for sure, but that does not make him anywhere near "the worst Bomber coach by far". It just makes him an astute judge of player talent and character (or lack thereof in this case) who recognized that he was next to get thrown under the bus by his GM and refused to roll over and die, but instead called out those players (and by extension, his GM) to keep alive the hope of coaching in the future. That stance, however unseemly, got him re-hired in Montreal. The stink of that Bomber regime will forever rest on the shoulders of Joe Mack. But, as was so eloquently put by saskbluefan 2 years ago in another post: "The thing is there are a lot of people on this board with so much credibility capital wrapped up in Joe Mack that they can't admit what a dog of a roster this is. So whatever shortcomings Burke may have need to be blown 10x out of proportion in order to blame him rather then the lack of talent on this team for the disaster this year has become." And I'd put Mack's flaws in drafting, player assessment, letting free agents walk, failure to stockpile Canadian talent, inability to find a long term solution at quarterback or a back-up plan in place in the event of a Buck Pierce injury, and his overall refusal to learn from his own mistakes ahead of his acumen in hiring coaches. But we can agree to disagree.

The Banjo Bowl game was not as close as the score indicates. The 'Riders were up 27-8 at the half as a result of a blocked field goal touchdown return and a Dressler punt return TD because of an absolutely brutal missed call by the refs on a blatant hold. The Bombers only got back into it when Durant got knocked out with the elbow injury. But the 'Riders exposed the bad o-line (5 sacks) and weak run defence (196 yards, 6.3 yards per carry) that gave every other team a blueprint on how to beat Winnipeg for the rest of the year. Only a late fumble gave the Bombers a chance to steal the win, but Willy threw deep on first down and overthrew the receiver for an INT. Another late turnover gave him another shot, but this pass was even more forced and another INT. To be fair, he was being rushed all second half on his passes due to poor protection, but those throws were on him (which he admitted afterwards). Hopefully he won't be shell-shocked from all of the hits he took last year and he will display the patience he showed in the early comeback wins, and it goes without saying the line protection needs to be 100% better this year to give him any chance.

Anyone not attend camp today but want to invent a report? I'd be game to. But how do I change my username to "Tuscaloosa Blue?"

Bloggers are the most self important people out there. Really hard to read. I assume gbill has one.... That sounded like a shot. Was that a shot? Because it sure seems like a shot. Not a backfire but an honest to goodness shot. Don't worry. I'm sure our moderators will apply the rules of code of conduct they established and properly and appropriately admonish the offending parties.

In terms of specifically losing every game for an entire half of a season, it's happened twice in the club's 84 year history. In 1964 the team started 1-1-1 before losing 13 straight to finish off the season, so obviously went 0-8 in the second half of the year. In 1998 the club started the season 0-10 and finished at 3-15 overall. Last year we were close on both halves of the season, going 1-8 in the first half and 2-7 in the back half, but the other "almost" year was 1989, when we were 7-4 before losing 7 straight to finish off the regular season (we then won a playoff game before losing to the Tiger Cats in the eastern Final).

My cable package always allowed me to get TSN and TSN 2. When the expansion came to 5 TSN channels, I then got all 5…….until two days ago, that is. Now all I get is TSN 2 and TSN 3. With the Jets game on TSN 3 tonight (and U.S. college hockey on TSN 2) I could not get the CFL game. I called Shaw Cable (my provider) and asked why I wasn't getting the national TSN feed that I was paying for, and they explained that this is a TSN decision, not theirs, and TSN 1 is now technically TSN "West" (4 is Ontario and 5 is Quebec) so it is blacked out in the Winnipeg region, and the "free trial"of all 5 channels is now over. TSN 3 now supposedly replaces TSN 1 as the main TSN feed for Winnipeg, and TSN 2 provides secondary programming for the entire nation like it always has. Problem is that TSN 3 has not been showing the same stuff as TSN 1 all the time, and with the hockey game tonight taking precedence in the Winnipeg region, I was unable to watch our one national league on the sole national broadcaster, and apparently have no way to even pay more to order TSN 1 anymore (which I shouldn't have to, since I was already paying for it!). Long story short, I am told there is no national feed anymore, and Winnipeg broadcasting will take precedence over what TSN would normally broadcast on a national basis. So much for expanded TSN channels and more viewing options. My cable supplier told me if I want to complain, complain to TSN and not the cable company. Just curious if anyone else had this problem, or is my cable supplier mistaken? Also, if TSN 3 broadcasts something other than the Grey Cup, I will be pissed! Hope there isn't a Jets game on Grey Cup Sunday.

That's our own version of…the practice roster. So the other board is Paris Cotton and this board is Nic Grigsby?

Fill in the blank. Should the Bombers lose tonight, it would mean ________: (A few options to get you all started, or choose your own) A ) No way do we make the playoffs B ) No way do we win another game this year C ) Just another week of Mike 'O Shea saying he is not worried about the team, no need to overreact, they just need to correct a few things D ) Just another week of Mike 'O Shea saying he is not worried about the team, no need to overreact, they just need to correct a few things - but fans now openly start to question how out of touch he is with the reality of the situation (and by extension, his competence as a head coach) E ) Everybody relax, it's unfortunate but we are still in this thing F ) The sky is falling, this team is not any better significantly than last year, the 5-1 start was a total mirage because no one took us seriously, we are still the doormats of the league with major holes that will take years to fix, and management has done nothing better than last year's train wreck G ) The fact that this thread exists shows how I need to get off the sauce - no way do they lose tonight H ) The fact this thread exists shows how much of a knife edge this team is on right now because this once unthinkable scenario (a 1-11 team beating us) is now frighteningly possible or even probable(we are the best bet in the CFL right now for the Redblacks to win against given the last 7 weeks of play, despite the fact they have lost 9 in a row).

To provide a serious answer to this, Chris Cvetkovic still lives in Winnipeg and would be readily accessible to step in as a Canadian (sorry, "National") roster player to boot who we know can do a great job at it. Obvious question is: What kind of game-ready shape would he be in? But I remember us being able to snap up (no pun intended) Taylor Inglis from Edmonton pretty quickly last year when Cvetty went down with injury to solve our long snapping chores, why the difficulty this year, especially when Chad Rempel was just scooped up by the Riders last week for the very same purpose?

Is it just me or are Bomber fans on this site way too sensitive about the loyalty of other fan bases and how they are perceived? Seriously, why does it bother people so much that the Riders have legions of fans (who travel pretty well, judging by the Eskimo ad, the green contingent at the Banjo Bowl, and the noise at McMahon in Calgary when they visit). Frankly, I don't see Rider fans throwing their support in the faces of Bomber fans as much as I see the Bomber fans (wrongly) suggesting that they do as a means to defend how much better we are as fans. The cold hard numbers in stadiums, merchandise and in TV ratings back the idea that the Riders are the big thing in the CFL now, but they themselves also agree that the Bombers have a great fan base, so why the massive inferiority complex from Bomber fans who feel threatened by their popularity. Anything more than sour grapes?

I'd rather Bryant than Kelly Wow, good call. Add this to your Mack, Etienne and Pencer love and I'm really getting a feel for your shrewd assessment skills. We'll soon have to change your avatar to George Costanza.