CFL - 2024 Regular Season - Discussion Thread

[Jpan85]

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

That's wpgs title. I'm doubtful anyone comes close to WPG this season.

Betts doesn't play in the playoffs.

Top 2 get a pick

[Bigblue204]

Just now, Jpan85 said:

Top 2 get a pick

ohhhh ok. I didn't know that

[Noeller]

7 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

ohhhh ok. I didn't know that

We weren't even first last year... BC was tops then us, so we both got the extra pick. 

Edited August 29 by Noeller

[Noeller]

 

 

[Bigblue204]

11 minutes ago, Noeller said:

 

 

Leave it alone RANDY

[Brandon]

Didn't Ambrosie consider going to 4 downs at one point also?

[3rdand1.5]

2 sided coins IMO

 

One side Rourke is very talented and took BC to heights and helps sells tickets and merch, and is a media darling and will take them to the promise land for the home GC

Other side Rourke while talented needs pieces around him with certain skill sets that BC may not have as much of this season, it upsets the chemistry the team built with VAJ, the media will plant seeds of doubt if VAJ is actually the better QB and they don't make the home GC

 

One side BC's defence has struggled, Betts is another media darling, that put up great stats, in his last time with them

Other side BC's defence has struggled, Betts has been figured out and it doesn't really change much for them, the media starts to question his abilities, and he doesn't put up the stats to justify the amount he is making

 

Really BC is swinging for it at home this year. It's a huge amount of money between these two, but IF it works they will look like geniuses while sipping out of a Grey Cup at home....

If it doesn't work, they MAY end up penalized for being over the cap, Betts may move on after the season, they will more than likely lose VAJ in the offseason, possibly with some financial loss, and Rourkes contract may hamper them spreading talent around the roster which COULD make them even weaker next season, and sow further seeds of doubt.....

 

I see this season as boom or bust for them....only time will tell how it plays out

[Sard]

2 minutes ago, 3rdand1.5 said:

2 sided coins IMO

 

One side Rourke is very talented and took BC to heights and helps sells tickets and merch, and is a media darling and will take them to the promise land for the home GC

Other side Rourke while talented needs pieces around him with certain skill sets that BC may not have as much of this season, it upsets the chemistry the team built with VAJ, the media will plant seeds of doubt if VAJ is actually the better QB and they don't make the home GC

 

One side BC's defence has struggled, Betts is another media darling, that put up great stats, in his last time with them

Other side BC's defence has struggled, Betts has been figured out and it doesn't really change much for them, the media starts to question his abilities, and he doesn't put up the stats to justify the amount he is making

 

Really BC is swinging for it at home this year. It's a huge amount of money between these two, but IF it works they will look like geniuses while sipping out of a Grey Cup at home....

If it doesn't work, they MAY end up penalized for being over the cap, Betts may move on after the season, they will more than likely lose VAJ in the offseason, possibly with some financial loss, and Rourkes contract may hamper them spreading talent around the roster which COULD make them even weaker next season, and sow further seeds of doubt.....

 

I see this season as boom or bust for them....only time will tell how it plays out

They didn't learn their lesson with Mike (Michael) Reilly when they gave him a ridiculous contract to lure him out of Edmonton and then couldn't afford any other pieces around him.

[17to85]

35 minutes ago, Noeller said:

 

 

Randy Ambrosie needs to do the exact opposite of what he thinks he should do.

[rebusrankin]

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Randy Ambrosie needs to do the exact opposite of what he thinks he should do.

So he needs to pull a George Constanza

[HardCoreBlue]

18 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Randy Ambrosie needs to do the exact opposite of what he thinks he should do.

Yea I don't follow closely what he and his team does but I'm assuming he and his team are focusing most of their efforts into strengthening our product on and off the field to build a bigger fanbase/viewership/sponsorship/etc. ergo $$$$?

I'm thinking having a lively discussion on the rouge rule is not part of that main effort needed. 

Oh you got rid of that rouge rule? Yes? Oh in that case here's my money.

[Sard]

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

 

 

Do not change the rules regarding the rouge, it is a great rule that is unique to the CFL and make the game more interesting.  Even if the Bombers lost the game on a last second rouge, I would be saying the same thing, and I think it's ridiculous every time certain teams lose that this discussion comes up.  It's part of the strategy in the game to make sure you are close enough to be able to make the kick and incentivizes the returners to run the ball out of the end zone on a miss.  It is not a reward for missing a field goal, it is a reward for kicking the ball far enough, or stopping the returner from getting out of the end zone.

[TBURGESS]

The only change I'd make to the rouge is: If you kick it through the endzone without being touched, you don't get a point. That still allows for returns and doesn't reward FG misses. 

[17to85]

7 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The only change I'd make to the rouge is: If you kick it through the endzone without being touched, you don't get a point. That still allows for returns and doesn't reward FG misses. 

You don't get a point for missing the field goal, you get a point for kicking the ball through thr endzone. You get a field goal for kicking the ball through the uprights, and you get a touchdown for advancing the ball into the opponents endzone.

[Stickem]

Well so much for talking to Bailey's agent as he is off to Ottawa.....We must be  content  with what we have in Wheatfall ,Lucky and Wilson....orrrrr Rasheed's ask was too much??

[Sard]

26 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The only change I'd make to the rouge is: If you kick it through the endzone without being touched, you don't get a point. That still allows for returns and doesn't reward FG misses. 

That eliminates having the returner having to try to keep the ball in play on one that is close to the end line, and takes away an opportunity to score.  I wouldn't change it at all.

[17to85]

Why doesn't the CFL focus on getting a competent review process and functional statistics before they **** with the rules that make the game unique....

[WinnipegGordo]

Did you guys hear? Calgary has the best taigating in the Cfl!

 

[JuranBoldenRules]

The rouge being an issue is sad.  Everyone knows the rules…so maybe don’t hand the ball over to the other team on your own 35 in the last minute and then complain that you lost in a tied game?

Only rule I absolutely hate is the forced kickoff under 3 mins.  You play 57 mins with one set of rules after a FG then change.  Rouge is fine…it’s a reward for field position and makes the game far more strategic.

 

[rebusrankin]

17 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Did you guys hear? Calgary has the best taigating in the Cfl!

 

Maybe they do. Stadium is a dump so perhaps people just tailgate versus actually going to the game.

[17to85]

34 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

Did you guys hear? Calgary has the best taigating in the Cfl!

 

Tailgating is one thing the stamps game day does do well.

[WinnipegGordo]

18 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The rouge being an issue is sad.  Everyone knows the rules…so maybe don’t hand the ball over to the other team on your own 35 in the last minute and then complain that you lost in a tied game?

Only rule I absolutely hate is the forced kickoff under 3 mins.  You play 57 mins with one set of rules after a FG then change.  Rouge is fine…it’s a reward for field position and makes the game far more strategic.

 

I didnt like when they changed from the 35 to the 40 for the line of scrimmage after field goals.

I understand they wanted to increase scoring but teams should have to earn the yardage.

[Sard]

7 minutes ago, WinnipegGordo said:

I didnt like when they changed from the 35 to the 40 for the line of scrimmage after field goals.

I understand they wanted to increase scoring but teams should have to earn the yardage.

They said that they wanted to do that to increase scoring across the league.   I would be curious to know what the average scores were before and after that change and if it had the intended effect.

[Mark H.]

34 minutes ago, Sard said:

They said that they wanted to do that to increase scoring across the league.   I would be curious to know what the average scores were before and after that change and if it had the intended effect.

I'm sure it's all been analyzed with advanced statistics.

[Noeller]

Stamps tailgate area is virtually entirely fan driven and it is fun. 

I don't believe they have a team run area like the bombers do, but the "private" on site tailgating is fun. I've done a few of them, and people play games and listen to music and BBQ and all that... It's a good time.