HardCoreBlue

His punting has been fine. Can't blame him for crappy coverage on returns. He has continually put punts right down the middle of the field when they should be going near sidelines. You cannot blame a punter if a cover team fails to cover. Even if they kick a ball right when it should go left you should be able to compensate in coverage. In every case this year either the cover team was blocked out or did not stay in their lanes. If you stay in your lanes you rarely will get scored on. I have watched lots of teams kickers place the ball in the middle of the field or not pull of a great punt and not get scored on. Yes this is misguided. Vary rarely, if ever, do you want the kicker punting up the middle or completely missing the call on what side to kick. The coverage team is taught lane responsibility that is compromised, not due to their inability, but due to a speedy returners delight because of the kicker not performing his responsibility. I've seen special team coordinators rip into their kicker because he decided to punt for show with a booming kick up the middle and not punt for what he actually was asked to do.

But how many times was Nichols pounded and/or hurried into throwing the ball away?Oddly enough, after Neufeld went out, the line settled down a bit and he (Nichols) seemed to stay upright .. Goosen at LG .. Capers at RT.. First half especially, untouched defenders teeing off on Nichols. Brutal. That has nothing to do with adjustments. However if our kicker does his job today, 33 points is something I might have a hard time using as evidence to add to the already collected evidence thus far that supports canning our OC. Just focusing on today in isolation, this game is not on MB.

I called one poster's response silly, because it didn't address my question. Anyway, you seem to be happy being an elitist too and also didn't answer my question regarding why so many people in Canada must be bigots and stupid because they disagree with you, so I bid you good day. How many? Do you have specific numbers? Do you at least have an an estimate based on a sound methodology to make that claim?

Those are huge. The play's timing is so affected by that.

I'm the complete opposite. This one was a tease all the way through till the final back breaking play. Most of our other losses haven't had this same feel for the full 60 minutes. I had no time to accept we we're going to lose until that ball crossed the uprights with no time left on the clock.

He needs to keep his emotions in check and go out and perform. Absolutely play with a chip on your shoulder but channel your energy on getting the ball to your playmakers and win like you've been there before. If I was Mr.Nichols that's what I'm going to deliver to Mr. Jones today. Go Bombers Go.

You're right the judges who decided this case at trial and on appeal, as well as the Canadian judicial system, whose principals I'm repeating, lack the common sense required to discuss this issue. I also find it interesting, that you say the left treats people who disagree with them as dumb (which I do think can be true), yet because I disagree with you, you've insinuated I'm too dumb to discuss this issue. I think that's called irony.

Hall for the cats is a beast. And I like how Calgary ran their whole front four from the 2 point stance. I also enjoy watching Steinhauers defence with all their movement showing many different looks. Sometimes works, others not but great to watch.

I know, I was just reminiscing, sorry for the distraction.

John Scott is over-rated. He's huge and uses that to his advantage very well but he's not a great fighter. At the end of the 2013-14 season, he got tuned by a rookie in his 1st (regular season) fight. https://youtu.be/ao8qZ3huAdk The overall best fighter is hard to gauge these days since the enforcers either don't play much or get the chance to go against each other. Deryk Engelland dominated most of his fights in 2014-15 and Brian McGrattan was the man in 2013-14 but barely played last year. Peluso is definitely top 5 (imo) though. Scott wins almost all of his fights, most of them decisively. He doesn't have to be a great technical fighter when he's that big. Nobody wins every fight though. He got the best of Engelland a couple seasons ago. I don't like him though, as he's the worst of what fighting is in hockey. He can't play and acts lke a bully, going after non-fighters. I was a big fan of Engelland when he was a Pen. Koed Orr as a rookie. Scott does win decisively most of the time, I will give him that but the quality of the fights isn't there. Check him out on www.hockeyfights.com and look at how low his fight ratings are and who they are against. He only fought 3 times in the regular season last year with 2 being in one game against the same guy (Tim Jackman - who didn't even receive a fighting penalty the 2nd time). If he actually fought another fighter like he used to 4-5 years ago, I think I'd rate him higher. Luke Gadzic & Ryan Reaves are another couple guys I'd put in the top 5. Until Buff reminds him he's a mediocre NHL caliber player at best. See last year. I'm still in love with that hit Buff delivered him. A beauty. Fair but aggressive. That's one of the main reasons I especially enjoy watching hockey and football.

Needed recipe for longevity.

How does it feel saying that? I'm going to use this line with my wife tonight.

Holy, you're on fire today, well said.

Yea good on him for taking care of himself and the people close to him, I mean that. Football is very short term for most of these guys. The however part, purely from the 'I'm a HardCore Bomber fan and everyone else can suck it' mentality, is my guilty pleasure would be in three games Henoc, modifying a page from the Michael Sam play book, announces on Twitter "I never really wanted to comeback to the CFL anyways". I joke of course.

That's a great word and I'm wondering what the overall team expectations are realistically with the Jets this coming season when it comes to progression. I'm a huge Maurice fan, always have been, I think he's a really good fit with this team. I hope the players reward him with every game this season is a playoff game. I like that mentality better than a team lead by Sutter who suggests just do enough to get into the playoffs (which they didn't do enough last year as it turned out) and then turn it up. I understand why and the benefits you can get from it but I don't like it, never have never will. The expectation has to be the playoffs. Will they consider it an absolute failure if they don't make the playoffs? Tough to say with the rookies that will be in the lineup this year and the division we are in. I think it really depends on how the team plays and progress the young players make. Scheifele and Trouba need to step up this year and start to be difference makers. Both will be in their 3rd year. Lowry needs to continue his progression. Copp and Ehlers need to show they belong and earn the trust of the coach. I think the goaltending situation over the next 2 years is going to be very interesting. Time for someone to take the job from Pavelec. Hammer, meet nail.

You must be from around these parts. Ference is average at best without Chara by his side. As a Jet fan,, I'm hoping they play these guys more so I can have great conversations with my Oiler fan colleagues coming into the office every morning. Something like, 'Unfortunately, McDavid can't play every position for 60 minutes'.

I'm hoping for a big year from Chiarot. Hope he has the fitness and genetics to play 82 games.

That's a great word and I'm wondering what the overall team expectations are realistically with the Jets this coming season when it comes to progression. I'm a huge Maurice fan, always have been, I think he's a really good fit with this team. I hope the players reward him with every game this season is a playoff game. I like that mentality better than a team lead by Sutter who suggests just do enough to get into the playoffs (which they didn't do enough last year as it turned out) and then turn it up. I understand why and the benefits you can get from it but I don't like it, never have never will.

A more important criteria than sacks would be how disciplined and effective is Peach with his Gap assignments. Gap assignment is important, however, a DE has to have the ability to rush the QB. Saying that Peach's zero sacks is excusable because of gap assignment is like saying a receiver with zero catches is worth starting because he blocks well downfield. Stats don't tell the whole story on a player's abilities or worth, but they shouldn't be ignored either. Gap control...sheesh...if that's all we want out of a DE then no wonder our DL is in shambles. Absolutely, ideally I want the whole package from my DE not just one component. Great comparison with the receiver too.

That's where you (and others) and me (and others) disagree. First, It wouldn't have been thrown for 'just because', because that implies I'm throwing a challenge flag for no other reason than the simple fact of throwing it. Not true in this case. There would have been reasons (debatable yes but still reasons), other than just wanting to ensure it was a catch, for which I have mentioned in previous posts. Second, calling it a 'dumb idea' suggests very few, if any, believe that throwing the challenge flag at that moment with those circumstances would have been a good thing. Not true in this case. It seems more than a few (and some probably a lot smarter than me) equal to your side of the debate believe it would have been the appropriate thing to do.. Third, the beauty of hindsight is when a similar scenario presents itself again (and by your own admission, a perfect time to throw it), you can now apply that learning, maximizing (not guaranteeing) a successful result based based on experience. The reason that I call it a dumb idea is simple. In my understanding, you throw a challenge flag when you believe that the officials have made an challengeable error. To have that belief, you need some evidence in that moment that the official is wrong. O'Shea has said he had none. There is no other good reason that I'm aware of to throw one, so if you are throwing it without evidence, that's just dumb. And as to your point about a similar scenario presenting itself, there are big plays or circus catches occurring every game. You can't challenge every one of them, just because. You need evidence and that is what O'Shea, in my opinion, needs to focus on. Go find the replay guy, kick his butt and tell him that he better start doing his job before he (O'Shea) loses his. Anyway, I think I've said all I need to on this one, so let's just do the "agree to disagree" thing and move on, shall we? First bold = not true Second Bold = True Third Bold = Likewise Fourth bold = Absoutely

That's where you (and others) and me (and others) disagree. First, It wouldn't have been thrown for 'just because', because that implies I'm throwing a challenge flag for no other reason than the simple fact of throwing it. Not true in this case. There would have been reasons (debatable yes but still reasons), other than just wanting to ensure it was a catch, for which I have mentioned in previous posts. Second, calling it a 'dumb idea' suggests very few, if any, believe that throwing the challenge flag at that moment with those circumstances would have been a good thing. Not true in this case. It seems more than a few (and some probably a lot smarter than me) equal to your side of the debate believe it would have been the appropriate thing to do.. Third, the beauty of hindsight is when a similar scenario presents itself again (and by your own admission, a perfect time to throw it), you can now apply that learning, maximizing (not guaranteeing) a successful result based based on experience.

Hmm if that's confirmed in what he said, I guess O'Shea himself, as a professional CFL head coach, is thinking whimsical preposterous thoughts.Ya it's confirmed. He said it twice. You think I'm lying? No, not at all. Thank you for posting this. I just wanted to confirm he said it. I was slammed repeatedly by Mr. Dee, WBBFan, Rich, Mike and a few others for talking nonsense, being preposterous and whimsical, why I couldn't be a professional football coach for suggesting that it would have been wise for our head coach to have thrown that challenge flag on that play to slow everything down. Now it's confirmed he agrees. So I'm assuming these same posters will direct their wrath at our Head Coach now for the exact same criticisms they directed towards me. Just because the coach changed his mind, doesn't mean I did. I disagreed with your opinion, but I don't believe I accused you of any of those things. I don't think a coach should waste a challenge on a play he has no evidence will be overturned as you never know what the following play will be and if you wish you still had your challenge and or time-outs. So why would I direct any wrath at the head coach? My point Rich is your (and others) thought process (wasting a challenge) on this particular play with the specific circumstances (time running out, no tape to determine catch or not, opposition hurrying up their offense when they should be burning the clock) is flawed on plays like this with these unique circumstances. And it would seem our Head Coach, upon reflection, would agree. That's all, no more no less.

Hmm if that's confirmed in what he said, I guess O'Shea himself, as a professional CFL head coach, is thinking whimsical preposterous thoughts.Ya it's confirmed. He said it twice. You think I'm lying? No, not at all. Thank you for posting this. I just wanted to confirm he said it. I was slammed repeatedly by Mr. Dee, WBBFan, Rich, Mike and a few others for talking nonsense, being preposterous and whimsical, why I couldn't be a professional football coach for suggesting that it would have been wise for our head coach to have thrown that challenge flag on that play to slow everything down. Now it's confirmed he agrees. So I'm assuming these same posters will direct their wrath at our Head Coach now for the exact same criticisms they directed towards me.

So even if he's injured I can release him for other reasons and can't release him only because he's injured? If so, this would be a close call wouldn't it. Did they decide to cut him prior to knowing of his injury? I don't know what the official rule is and how it's determined and the sequence of things and if that has any bearing on releasing players that are injured.

A more important criteria than sacks would be how disciplined and effective is Peach with his Gap assignments.