HardCoreBlue

As you stumble back to your hotel, mumbling and muttering Gawd damn Bombers, wear our colors proud my friend. :-)

The NDP never really stood a chance federally once the momentum left them. Ontario is just not an NDP place. Bob Rae sank their hopes in that province and let's be honest, if you don't do well in Ontario you won't have much of a chance. I'd also say that Quebec bought the crap Jack Layton was selling last time and Mulcair is just so unappealing as a potential prime minister that they were bound to fail. Trudeau may just be a hair piece, but he's a face and that's all the Liberal party is using him as. The machine behind him has run a good campaign while the NDP tried to walk both sides of the line and never convince either side and the Conservatives spent the whole time saying "vote for us or the terrorists will get you!" It's quite frankly insulting and they deserve to lose for that alone. I'd tend to agree with you on this, with some reasons being valid and other reasons not so much, but the outcome being the same.

orange wave good-bye. Orange crush has turned into orange crash. Oh yeah, by the way, I really think the NDP is pile of smoking dog turds. Shocking :-)

Yes there are good and bad people and there are good and bad police officers. Yes I can see the validity with body cameras, absolutely. It's another story with Jane and John Doe filming though. It would make me very nervous to want to be a police officer nowadays or for that matter any profession where your job requires you to engage with people in public environments. The things that people (like people who hate the police no matter what) can do to fool people with videos/technology (e.g., no context) with an instantly judgmental society (not everyone I'm saying) is often times a recipe for disaster. Ultimately and thankfully in this day in age the truth usually comes out that correctly shows what happened. Unfortunately for some (Private citizen and/or law enforcement professional) the damage as already been done.

Nope. Mario could have been but wasn't. Can't label a player most special player based on what-if arguments. Hmmm...how about he was the most awe-inspiring player of all time (or at least his generation). Just ridiculous talent. Keep trying, Gretzky claimed that one as well, regardless of generation. :-) Not to me, he didnt. Fair enough, I can't give you a hard time on this, we all have our favorites. I once tried, with my Winnipeg Jet Bias in full use, to argue with some Oiler fans that my all time favorite Jet, Thomas Steen, was a better passer/playmaker in traffic than Gretzky. I didn't get any takers.

Nope. Mario could have been but wasn't. Can't label a player most special player based on what-if arguments. Hmmm...how about he was the most awe-inspiring player of all time (or at least his generation). Just ridiculous talent. Keep trying, Gretzky claimed that one as well, regardless of generation. :-)

Nope. Mario could have been but wasn't. Can't label a player most special player based on what-if arguments.

Not to mention the fact that both Gretzky and Lemieux made players around them better. I probably would have scored thirty myself if I had these guys banking it off head.

relentless logic and not allowing people to get out of erroneous claims? Yeah it does tend to win debates. Two terms that are sometimes overused and misinterpreted to make a point. We are all guilty of it, some more than others.

I absolutely hated that call, I'd hate it even if it was our QB . We talk about protecting the QB's, which is good, but now we're going to have defensive players not playing full speed, which is bad.

If her story is indeed true, I'm wondering if a) Tyler Johnson had a significant other while this happened and if yes is this person aware? My point here is its amazing how many people can be potentially hurt by her sharing this story with the world.

Good one. I'm interested in seeing how our goaltending situation is after 15-20 games.

Umm actually that would be a two tie between Mark Kumpel and Sergie Bautin . . . :-)

Yep some people are ignoring those things...probably because they have absolutely no bearing on this conversation. You can't apply generalities across the board as if they are absolutes. You judge MOS solely on his body of work, and with the facts you have, if you are the Bombers....certainly not on historical data. If we ignore history, we're doomed to repeat it. If you ignore context, you're doomed to sound like an idiot. Yup... let's ignore history because context (excuses) are so much more reliable. #haha As long as we want to remember history, let's do that by all means. I'm looking at our history of cleaning house every couple of years. Seems to me that we haven't done so well doing that, but by all means, let's do it again because 5th-or-6th-or7th time's the charm, right? The main debate, if we're all playing the role of GM, is how much patience do you show for your head coach before it's time to change? Obviously subjective and full of varying influences. But is there some general number that can be used as as a marker? Or is it strictly scenario by scenario that you can't put a number on? For myself, I think you give MOS one year with an option (can you do that with a head coach - option?) to demonstrate we're heading in the right direction, i.e., is in the running to win it all. You'll never attract a top quality head football coach with such a short contract. I understand what you're saying, but controlling for whether you think MOS is top quality or not, are you suggesting MOS would walk if this was offered?

Yep some people are ignoring those things...probably because they have absolutely no bearing on this conversation. You can't apply generalities across the board as if they are absolutes. You judge MOS solely on his body of work, and with the facts you have, if you are the Bombers....certainly not on historical data. If we ignore history, we're doomed to repeat it. If you ignore context, you're doomed to sound like an idiot. Yup... let's ignore history because context (excuses) are so much more reliable. #haha As long as we want to remember history, let's do that by all means. I'm looking at our history of cleaning house every couple of years. Seems to me that we haven't done so well doing that, but by all means, let's do it again because 5th-or-6th-or7th time's the charm, right? The main debate, if we're all playing the role of GM, is how much patience do you show for your head coach before it's time to change? Obviously subjective and full of varying influences. But is there some general number that can be used as as a marker? Or is it strictly scenario by scenario that you can't put a number on? For myself, I think you give MOS one year with an option (can you do that with a head coach - option?) to demonstrate we're heading in the right direction, i.e., is in the running to win it all.

Yup. Just a thought but as the Eskimos are heading into the post season, I have a feeling they may pick him up as insurance as they seem a little light on their tailbacks. Then release him once their season is over.

I'll take Toronto by 14. Get the broom out.

I didn't realize a) Bucknor can play safety better than he can at corner and Veltung knows how to play corner when matched against an experienced CFL Wide Receiver.

Or did the eskimos defensive coordinator shite the bed. Depends on how you look at it I guess. But yes, fresh blood at the OC is needed along with a few other things. Wait till the off season.

Exactly the feeling I have. Especially that high and slow shotgun snap where a run is called. Then to top it off, Chevron Walker. Maddening indeed.

After I've had a night to cool down, well said sir. In professional sport where it can be ruthless, his window of opportunity to complete this task will be very small.

Or I vote for mixing up tradition and have a comedian at half time show joke about how the first half went with no one immune to his observations. Russel Peters comes to mind :-)

Correct, but the point is the coverage team is now compromised which is never a good thing in my books.

Maybe he's one of those guys that kick it into gear come season time. The problem with that approach is you have to ensure you've made the team.

Why? And no I'm not always right. But all this sniveling is ridiculous. "Ohhh the ref lost us the game wha wha wha". I said it then and still stand by it. Liram is paid to MAKE THOSE KICKS. He's not paid to kick 4 out of 5 extra points and hit field goals inside 40 yards when they don't matter. What's wrong Mr.Dee - can't admit when you're wrong? I can. KptKrunch my observation of your posts is sometimes you have some very useful things to say to add value to the discussion, but frequently it's not what you write, it's how you write that can turn other people sideways. We're all guilty of that but some posters do it more consistently than others I would say.