HardCoreBlue

Buff's my man but wow, short memory time for him. He did not play well, looked disinterested almost, skating in mud. Patrik laine's defensive game needs work, but hey he's only like 12 so that should improve. I'll state the obvious, to make the playoff's we have to limit consecutive losses in a row. Stop the bleeding now against the Canes who btw have won 2 in a row.

That would be called stand-up wrestling. :-)

Yup because money can't guarantee everything, i.e, a starting position, a loyal headcoach, a great supporting cast, familiarity with management, a previously successful season to work off, an understanding of the city and it's fans etc etc.

Yup read the same thing but also read that's he's been cleared to play so I assume they're resting him till game time.

I'm actually quite surprised by this. It looked like (can't confirm) that he was knocked out cold. When that happens, the trend is the show usually gets shut down longer than a week. I do assume though they are not putting him at any risk other than the potential of getting clocked again which all other players do anyways.

It will be interesting to see if Petan has shown enough to the coaches to stick with the big club once these guys check back in.

I would think it's Matt Nichols job to lose. That's what I've seen with with MOS during his Tenure here. Unless of course Management overrides him which I don't see happening.

And I'd add, we will see an increase of this slashing/hacking/cross checking sh*te as we try to take out the body aggressiveness in sport. In a way, it's a bit ironic.

Watched Calgary's game last night (because the NHL forbids me to watch the Jets on TSN3 as I live in Alberta) and he was hacked and slashed two to three times last night with no calls. If I'm a Flames fan, I'm incensed. It was ridiculous.

A tale of two halves, that's for sure. It's a game, for me at least, in a very long time where I didn't think we were going to lose right to the moment we were 3rd and four with 36 seconds left. Then, the feeling crept in.

Makes sense for both teams. When he is on, EK is a quality on-ice player. Evander's style of play may free up some of their other offensive players, give them that spark they need. To quote the President-Elect, what do they have to lose?

Well the person that counts who currently makes that argument is Paul Maurice. The rest of us don't count. :-)

Bingo Bango Bongo.

Well, your opinion does not seem to jive with Paul Maurice. My evidence? He's not forced to dress Thorburn at all, but sometimes he does. He has the available depth to never dress him.

We had more than 10 seconds. Go and get the first down. Next play, run the ball to the centre hashmarks. Third play, kick the field goal for the win. Fourth play, celebrate. Fifth play, prepare for the Stamps.

Because, when matching up with who they are playing that day, Paul Maurice sometimes inserts him to the lineup that he believes helps the team. When he's not needed, he scratches him. He seems to be one of those players that will be in and out of the lineup throughout the year not just because of injuries.

Shocking, an athlete having confidence he can do something, whether it's realistic to achieve in a game or not. In this particular case a 61 yard field goal that you have to hit perfect as a line drive and because of that, risk it will be blocked at the line of scrimmage going at game speed. Would Nichols have been given the benefit of the doubt? How many times do you see a QB 'encouraging' his coach to go for it on 3rd down and how many times do you see a coach ignore it? I'm wondering if Nichols had any type of conversation with MOS to go for it on 3rd down? What's done is done, I was over it the same day it happened. 2017 will be our year.

Is that true? If so, I would find that surprising.

Nowadays, regardless of who it is, it's called 99% of the time. I just think the pendulum has swung where we are witnessing a drastic change in how this game is being played. I understand why but . . .

One can be disappointed in the play call and not be a armchair coach. It can happen.

Nope, not this guy. If we don't make the first down, my disappointment lay with why we don't make the first down. No more no less. Next year is our year and fast approaching 30 years saying that. #can'tlosehopethough

True but BC in this specific situation may be in a more vulnerable position in taking one. I assume (complete assumption because I've never looked this up) that D tales more penalties than O in certain situations but I could be wrong.

That's a great point. I'd like to ask CFL Officiating does the rule dictate that Loffler still gets penalized even if he caught the ball, i.e player in a vulnerable position?

What if you factor in the chances of BC taking a penalty on a 3rd and four gamble versus a 61 yard field goal?

To distract us from our current misery. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on Loffler's hit on Manny Arceneaux. Do you agree that these types of hits should be taken out of football? Coaching PeeWee football this year, we were penalized on a few occasions both offense and defense in taking out players that didn't see it coming from a blocking or tackling point of view. And I'm not talking about the penalties that occurred 30 yards away from the play where a player takes out an an unsuspecting opposition. Those I agree in being penalized. I'm all for player safety and I don't want to see players experience long term effects but I struggle with accepting that these types of hits being outlawed. Isn't there onus on all players to be aware of one's surroundings? Like in Hockey not keeping your head up when receiving a pass? Anyways, I'd like to hear what other's think.