brett_c_b

That's what I saw... please stop with this garbage ISO, you've mentioned it 10 times, and every time it's pointed out it's horribly wrong. So going by that data we should hire Edmonton's GM, as Mike Reilly is the only guy on their team making over $100,000. We need that negotiator to get 90% of our team on league minimum contracts. BC doesn't pay any national player more than 71k. We get that you love everything Stampeders and hate everything Bombers, but at least try hate the Bombers for legitimate reasons. Hell according to that site Cornish is the only National player Calgary pays above league minimum. If anyone wants an excel file of all the data from that site pm me and I'll e-mail it to you so you can see for yourself how incomplete it is. It's basically their website but in excel. Now i'm looking at their sourcing for the sourced contracts. So Zach Anderson is listed at $51,000 and sourced. The source is an old cjob article saying he signed, but no reference to salary. So even when they say a contract is sourced it's a joke.

I'd give him a lot more credit if he wrote the article before the game. It's easy after they lose playing Brohm to pen an article about how it's the wrong decision. It would actually show some conviction if the article were written before the game was played. He's been saying all along that Nichols should be starting. Nearly every day on the radio and if not him then Davis should get the start since Brohm is awful. Fair enough, I'm not in Winnipeg so not exactly listening to Lawless on the radio (if I were I still wouldn't listen to Lawless).

I'd give him a lot more credit if he wrote the article before the game. It's easy after they lose playing Brohm to pen an article about how it's the wrong decision. It would actually show some conviction if the article were written before the game was played.

So to clarify, your stance is "I know it's wrong, but it's the basis of my argument anyway"? I may have to change my mental profile of you from grumpy old man to senile old man. **edit** I kept reading and then realized you then went on to the "it's on the internet so it must be true" defense, as that's the only reason you're using that site, and basing your entire argument around it. Just gets better and better.

The salary floor is $600,000 below the cap, so I don't see how any team could be 1 million below the cap. Cap of 5.05M floor of 4.45M

That may be true but if he gets results and they start winning, the fans will love him. He has a .444 winning percentage as a head coach. It's not likely. That bad? Hmm ... Well as has been suggested, maybe he should leave the coaching to others. AC may help. Not sure why it's a surprise he doesn't have a great coaching record. He goes from GM to coach when things are going poorly, so he's always coaching teams that have problems. I'm surprised it's that high to be honest.

This seems to be a common line of thinking that only one change can happen at a time. If the defensive coordinator feels he can make changes to improve the defense, why should he not because the offense is struggling (unless the head coach says no I would prefer you leave the current system in place) At my job my department is running pretty well right now. Another department is doing ok and having a few challenges. If I have an idea for a change that will help my results, I'm still going to pursue it regardless of whether another department is making changes or not in response to their issues. Just because our OC isn't making a lot of changes and the offense is struggling isn't a reason for the DC to sit on his hands if he thinks the defense can be better. I'm not saying a 3-4 would be better or worse, just that I disagree with the sentiment that the DC shouldn't look at changes because the offense needs more work.

When he got hurt I asked a friends wife about the type of injury he suffered. She figured 3 months. If that's accurate, then we likely don't see him again this season unless we're hanging on to a playoff spot really late in the year.

I would replace one coach every three games on a rotating basis, as that's usually how long it takes the internet to call for someones head.

Someone at work asked me today if I was going, and was quite suprised when I said no. She knows I'm going to CFL games this year in calgary/edmonton/vancouver/ottawa/toronto, so just expected I'd make a trip to Winnipeg for the Grey Cup. There are two main reasons I'm not going. 1. I went to the last Grey Cup in Winnipeg and it was the worst pro sports experience I've had. Our whole section just wanted to drink, and I spent more time getting up and down to let people out of the aisle than I did watching the game. I barely saw any of the game because of the drunks who had no interest in football. 2. Price, I tend to avoid overpriced sporting events (I considered going to the World Juniors in Finland this year since I figure I can go to Finland to watch for the same price as watching the tournament in Toronto/Montreal since I wouldn't be paying the ridiculous ticket prices).

Randle's "linebacker" spot is essentially a 3rd HB mirroring the fact that on the majority of downs offenses play 3 SB's and 2 WR's. Simmons and Bass don't really fit the profile of guys you want covering SB's all the time. appreciate the information. Growing up somewhere where playing football was never an option my only knowledge is what I've seen watching the game and reading on here, so I appreciate the game, but don't have the position by position knowledge of other sports I've played or coached where I understand what every player should be doing.

So I'll admit I don't know the ins and outs of each linebacker spot, I see a lot of talk of maybe rotating him with the existing linebackers. For those with more knowledge than myself, what option makes more sense, either rotating him with the existing linebackers, or making him a starting linebacker, filling those three spots with bass/hurl/simmons, then put randle on the corner instead of bucknor. Leaves you starting 7 Canadians with Adams/Randle on the corners. In theory you'd still be fine in case of an injury as if someone in the secondary goes down you can play bucknor and if a linebacker goes down Randle can always shift back to linebacker with Bucknor coming in to play corner. All the talk lately of teams picking on Bucknor just wondering if signing Simmons opens up the possibility of putting randle back on the corner

This can't be right. The rest of the league has more than 1 defensive TD for sure, the Bombers have one, I believe Edmonton and Montreal have a few. Toronto scored a special teams one on us this week. Just pulled up the league stats for after week 7 on cflmedia.ca and it shows the following interception/fumble recovery TD's Hamilton - 5, Davis - 3, Sears - 1, Stewart - 1 Winnipeg - 2, Adams - 1, Sherman - 1 Edmonton - 2 Ojo - 1, Watkins - 1 Calgary - 2 Raymond - 1, Thibault - 1 Toronto - 1, Jefferson Ottawa - 1, Evans And for punt return Td's Hamilton - 2, Banks Montreal - 1, Logan

Why is there even a thread about a team having fun winning games. At the end of the day everyone who has played a sport started playing it because it's fun. Nobody here would be complaining about the bombers enjoying themselves or being dirty if the roles were reversed. Half his board was thrilled to sign Picard because they want our O-line to be dirtier/nastier and have an attitude. These guys aren't making millions, who cares if they're enjoying their job. If the bombers ever get to a point of winning more games than they lose, I hope they enjoy it too.

Also pay attention to how ineffective Montreal has been on 2nd down (0/12 I think to start the game before their first conversion). I plan to remember that if the Bombers struggle tomorrow.

message for bomber fans after a tough loss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKLmXPQFscs

going through my picks, I've picked every single montreal game wrong so far

I don't go to the concession during games as I don't have the patience for the lines and don't want to miss any of the game otherwise. So I basically get to my seat and don't leave until the game is over, so the concourse really only impacts me before/after the game.

It's old and showing it's age, but it's still a good place to watch football. Not really any poor seats to watch from, yeah there;s bench seats in the endzone sections and maybe up in the nose bleeds, but so what? Not like putting a board on the back makes things any more comfortable. the one time I sat on the benches at Mcmahon I was just glad the attendance was so sparse, for where the seats are outlined I don't know how you actually fit 1 person per spot. That said I'm above average in both height and weight so seating room is always something I'm looking at. The benches at Mcmahon were awful from what I recall, the actual seats are fine. The times I've been to IGF the legroom in some areas was fantastic, and seemed to be above average anywhere I sat. MTS Centre however I don't like going to on the other hand. I went to a world junior pre-tournament game there a decade ago, the leg room was bad enough I've turned down free NHL tickets because I just don't want to sit in there again.

Is she hot? I agree we need pics here. She was very HOT! In addition, usually drunk by half time. The perfect combo. Skinny and drunk with big ****, that kind of perfect combo. BUT Nooooooooo, I had some morals. I had some ethics. I was a complete idiot. Now I'm just stuck reminding myself of her from time to time when, well you know. ?

I don't think I've ever seen the Bombers win a game in person. The years I lived in Winnipeg I was a student and didn't make it to many games, and 6 years in Alberta hasn't been kind. So some fans have never seen the Bombers win a Grey Cup, I've never actually seen them win a game.

In the moment I liked the call from Tedford to try make O'shea pay for putting them in 2nd and 18 instead of 3rd and 8 and punting. They never should have been in 3rd and 2 to go for it if O'shea made a better call the play before. The upside to accepting that penalty is up to 10 yard of field position, the downside is potentially a first down. Didn't seem like a smart move from Winnipeg at the time. Wasn't 3rd and 8. It was 3rd and less than 2 yards. The penalty was applied from the previous spot. *edit* appears I remembered it incorrectly, ignore me

In the moment I liked the call from Tedford to try make O'shea pay for putting them in 2nd and 18 instead of 3rd and 8 and punting. They never should have been in 3rd and 2 to go for it if O'shea made a better call the play before. The upside to accepting that penalty is up to 10 yard of field position, the downside is potentially a first down. Didn't seem like a smart move from Winnipeg at the time.

that's not fair. Cato was 4th string. Please compare him to our 4th string for a fair assessment

yeah what the hell was that about? All the Stamps had to do was down the ball and run out the clock, and instead they do this weird back pass thing - what would have happened if Fuller had missed the ball and it had bounced around in the end zone? Montreal could have jumped on it and scored a TD. I don't get it. hufnagel picked montreal to cover the spread on his sport select ticket so he needed to concede the safety to win