BigBlue

RIGHT, SAME AS ... if you are going to nit pick at least venture your opinion Brandon

I don't understand why but I believe this site greatly undervalues Collaros Yes Rourke Evans Kelly Brown & Fajardo all have great talent and potential but how many have been multi year consistent winners Every one of them is still a fledgling ,,, they won't all stay that way but right now every one is inconsistent Zach is a winner and he uses his experience to keep us overcoming all odds Don't discount his stats too much ,,, they are pretty good So did we make the right decision keeping Zach and cutting Brown?

A little bit Negatron are we? that is your assumption, correct?

The biggest thing on my mind is Toronto's QB strategy

I do not understand the negativity towards Buck and Zach / good journeymen who have been mostly gettin er done ... for half a decade

just read this week's entire thread ... happy with the patriotism but not so pleased with the worry warts the west final is not going to be played on paper, no matter how good our presciptive analysis personnel decisions are mostly irrelevant but a more talented player may make a big hilite play (I believe our talent is better this year than last) its going to be won based on character and true gut wrenching grit and confidence the riders have been on a roller coaster and at the pinnacle of their rail ... we all know what will stop someone on a roll some have a winning tradition - others just show well the bombers are that confident heart that refuses to panic ... they have an amazing 4th quarter victory mode this is the house that MOS built a bad bounce or two can change the course of a game, sometimes irreparably but most bomber victories I remember, the veterans come back methodically to save the day an when providencce is on their side they accept their gift THEY ARE MORE THAN LUCKY

what is the back up qb plan?

I sort of keep track of where our blame comments are directed to as we prognosticate about the negatives on our Beloved Blue. I detect some of us amateurs are not quite as negative about our head coach as he racks up the current winning streak. Comments comparing him to Bud Grant might be having an influence at the moment. Last year as Craig Dickenson looked like he was going to be cast aside by the Rider',s so many were desperately hoping that we would not lose Buck Pierce to Regina as HC. Now here in early September Buck's play seleection is being heavily called into question. He has not been this kind of a target in a big way for a long time,, if ever. Personally, I believe Paul LaPolice as Pierce's mentor mis-educated him in many ways and left him with a number of bad habits. At times I want to pull my hair out and scream. The biggest problem I have with Buck is that when we are on a roll offensively, we switch to lead protection instead of ratcheting it up a notch with killer instinct. I enjoy watching teams that press home their advantage when the other team is currently on the ropes. I can live with most other things but not that. Yes I don't mind if we go more conservative with the lead; there is certain amount of sense to it. However, when we detect a habitual weakness I really believe we should go after it with all we got. Still, I believe Pierce is a superior offensive coordinator. He does have creativity and a certain brilliance if he allows himself to use it. What say you?

I doubt that the CFL execs have directed the officials to do such. If anything, maybe this is the refs way of evening things out. I would like to rename the executive's names to imitate ostriches. This is how they cope not with difficulty but with self-delusion as they maintain the status quo. These guys occupy positions of status, not a history of effectiveness and courage. So let's just say the CFL Ostriches and save ourselves a lot of bad breath.

Our referees are soothsayers? Not! Our refs should be trained to judge intent by the actions of the player not by guessing what's in his mind and heart… Observation of behaviour is what needs to be judged and thus the quality of the refereeing goes up.

I thought this proposal was already within the agreement

MOS thinks and says Zach is the best QB in the league "under pressure"

I propose this: All roughing the passer and/or intent to injure and/or spearing with the helmet = 25 yards and ejection Plus 3 game suspension or 2 game suspension if player was not in control of their body or 1 game suspension for "accidental" roughing No interpretation - judgment based on action No favors for 1st or 2nd time in the season At first this may seem too harsh but it is not These rules keep our best players playing ... the players will adjust by time the first third of the season is over The players are better off. the fans get to watch their heroes, the teams experience better attendance and ratings! All we need is for the CFL Exes to buy in; of course that requires a small spoonful of courage

Who amongst the CFL executive insist on not protecting the franchise quarterbacks that is their biggest expenditure on every roster? Who benefits from not adjusting the rules? The NFL has certainly gone to every effort to protect their franchise quarterbacks... So what is the reasoning process??? Do they just want to see violence to make the game more attractive? The hit to Collaros was a clear attempt to injure: the hit was very late and helmet to helmet was deliberate and intentional. The offender's will be greatly rewarded for knocking our QB out of the game and who knows how many games in the immediate and distant future. These type of deliberate non-protection QB rules cost attendance around the league. Nobody ultimately benefits from such malfeasance. So tell me why? Duh?

possible Adams slightly nicked?