Where in the West would you rank ______ ?

[TBURGESS]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

And we went 6-3 when Edmonton went 5-4. Nice of you to ignore the last 9 game summary that I did.

And you cherry picked the Edmonton stats, cuz they went 5-1 in the last 6 games. And Edm won a playoff game. And we went 3-4 in our last 7 games if you include the playoffs. 

[JCon]

Just now, TBURGESS said:

And you cherry picked the Edmonton stats, cuz they went 5-1 in the last 6 games. And Edm won a playoff game. And we went 3-4 in our last 7 games if you include the playoffs. 

I didn't cherry pick anything. I was looking at the second half of the season.

Big deal, they lost so much that they got the benefit of the cross-over. Hooray for them. Maybe you enjoy losing your way into the playoffs.

 

[TBURGESS]

26 minutes ago, JCon said:

I didn't cherry pick anything. I was looking at the second half of the season.

Big deal, they lost so much that they got the benefit of the cross-over. Hooray for them. Maybe you enjoy losing your way into the playoffs.

 

The last 3rd of the season plus the playoffs is a better indication of where Edmonton really was last year. 

[JCon]

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The last 3rd of the season plus the playoffs is a better indication of where Edmonton really was last year. 

They didn't win any more games than we did and didn't make it to the Grey Cup.

So, hand them the participation trophy, in your eyes, they clearly had a better season.

Maybe we can lose enough games this year to make you proud.

Edited February 21, 2017 by JCon

[GCn20]

We were better than Edmonton last year. However, the last third of our season was concerning.

[TBURGESS]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

They didn't win any more games than we did and didn't make it to the Grey Cup.

So, hand them the participation trophy, in your eyes, they clearly had a better season.

Maybe we can lose enough games this year to make you proud.

5-1 down the stretch and a playoff win isn't the participation trophy and it's way better than we did, both down the stretch and in the playoffs.

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

5-1 down the stretch and a playoff win isn't the participation trophy and it's way better than we did, both down the stretch and in the playoffs.

That's way better? They won 11 games and so did we.

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I just dont see it happening. Even without Hervey and Jones' history, the riders could very well be 1 piece away (QB) from becoming a potential threat, and if your edmonton who only went 9-9 last year and lucked out to cross over,  would you want to strengthen your direct competition?

There's so many variables to consider such as Reilly's health, your own QB depth, division rival..etc that just make a trade of this magnitude unlikely in my eyes

Unless that quarterback was Doug Flutie, the answer would be no. Snort.

[TBURGESS]

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

That's way better? They won 11 games and so did we.

They won 10, we won 11 (Our 11th win being against backups). They went 5-1 down the stretch. We went 3-3. They won a playoff game. We didn't.  

[Jpan85]

They played the Riders 3 times we did not.

[JCon]

Just now, TBURGESS said:

They won 10, we won 11 (Our 11th win being against backups). They went 5-1 down the stretch. We went 3-3. They won a playoff game. We didn't.  

They won 11 games last year. We won 11 games last year.

Not sure why they had such a better season in your eyes.

Again, hooray for the loser crossover. Lucky for them that they could go for that 11th win.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Jpan85 said:

They played the Riders 3 times we did not.

Doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't count.

[Taynted_Fayth]

3 minutes ago, tracker said:

Unless that quarterback was Doug Flutie, the answer would be no. Snort.

lol i didn't say they would be world beaters, but realistically a couple bounces go their way last year and they are a .500 team as well

[17to85]

Tburgess logic, everyone is better than the Bombers always. The only person more consistently down on the team than he is is Paul Friesen. 

[TBURGESS]

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

They won 11 games last year. We won 11 games last year.

Not sure why they had such a better season in your eyes.

Again, hooray for the loser crossover. Lucky for them that they could go for that 11th win.

If you actually read my posts, you wouldn't make the same mistakes twice. Go back and look at the number of wins for both teams.  

Hint: 

Blue Bombers

11

7

Eskimos

10

8

I'll take a playoff win over a playoff loss every single time.

[TBURGESS]

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Tburgess logic, everyone is better than the Bombers always. The only person more consistently down on the team than he is is Paul Friesen. 

Not everyone. The Riders, Argos, and the Als were definitely worse. 

[JCon]

59 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

If you actually read my posts, you wouldn't make the same mistakes twice. Go back and look at the number of wins for both teams.  

Hint: 

Blue Bombers

11

7

Eskimos

10

8

I'll take a playoff win over a playoff loss every single time.

I said the Esks won 11 games last year. They did. Not sure why I would need your posts to correct me, when you're wrong. They won 11 games and lost 9. We won 11 and lost 8.

Not sure why you don't count the playoffs now. You're the one claiming being the crossover loser is such a heroic achievement.

 

[Atomic]

The Esks faced the 7-11 Hamilton Losers in the playoffs while the Bombers faced the 12-6 BC Buonos.  Not even close to comparable.

[TBURGESS]

7 minutes ago, JCon said:

I said the Esks won 11 games last year. They did. Not sure why I would need your posts to correct me, when you're wrong. They won 11 games and lost 9. We won 11 and lost 8.

Not sure why you don't count the playoffs now. You're the one claiming being the crossover loser is such a heroic achievement.

My bad... I didn't realize you were including playoffs in the number of wins. 

I'm the one claiming that a playoff win is better than a playoff loss. You're the one calling the cross over a heroic achievement.

[Bigblue204]

Deleted

Edited February 21, 2017 by Bigblue204
cause it ain't worth it!

[SPuDS]

On ‎18‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 3:12 PM, Mr Dee said:

What's hilarious is the fact that you guys already had a bonafide QB to use until the next guy, but you've turned it into a hunt and seek issue with guys like Young. I mean, really? 

What I can see for POTENTIAL trades for Jones is a worse over-the-barrel Barker-type scenario that will put several smiles/grimaces on your faces as you seek to explain that one...

and then he acts like we slapped his sister-cousin for suggesting they may be up the creek.. its not like we don't know what we are talking about here, lol.