First preseason game NOT televised

[WBBFanWest]

 

 

 

 

 

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually 

That's preferable to whining about them.

 

 

For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter.

 

Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator.

 

That's not me Mike.  I don't turn everything into a personal matter.  I simply don't back down when others do.

 

Sure, I like to agitate.  Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun.  Keeps the conversations going too.

 

TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup.  You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  It doesn't.  I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off.  Not a lot of time, but some.  I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again.  I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line.  Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO.  

 

 

No, that's actually not a fact.  We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion.  Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  My answer is: Does it really matter?   

 

To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win."

 

Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that.

 

Tim Burke???    Yup, that's the way to make a point around here.  

 

You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win?  I'm certain we have better players than we are sending.  So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game.  It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team.  In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'.  I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance.  I don't agree with it, but I can see it.  I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year.  I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year.  That would mean sending less fringe players this week.  We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster.

 

I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field.  It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible.  I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots.  I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent.  I could go on, but you get my point.  

 

Is my way the only way?  Of course not!  Never said it was.

 

You're absolutely right.

[Jacquie]

No one should expect that it will look like a regular season game because there will be tons of changes in personal, but folks should expect CFL quality players because that's what every player out there wants to be.

The point of preseason is to find out who can play well with and against CFL calibre talent. A 90% rookie team doesn't tell you anything about playing with CFL quality talent. Assuming Toronto plays their first team guys for less than a quarter, it doesn't tell you much about playing against CFL quality talent either.

I didn't agree with it when we got beat 52-0 in a preseason game a couple of years ago and I don't agree with it now. Hopefully the next preseason game will have most of our starters in for the first quarter or so so we get a look at where were really at this year.

you realize preseason is essentially practice.. and we all know what they say about practice..

I swear, you login to the forum and say to yourself "what can i disagree or argue against today.."

I think everyone gets that preseason is an extended practice. In practice though, the starters get the majority of the reps.

During the regular season they do. Not necessarily during the first week and a half of TC.

[USABomberfan]

Yeah I was thinking with all those channels TSN added last year, there's no excuse not to show the game online.  I wasn't around to see the game tonight, but if the Ticat website was going to show it, maybe we'll get a Toronto feed coming out.

[Fatty Liver]

Unless the game is streamed on one of the TSN's main channels I don't think it is going to be easy to find.  I couldn't locate any other stream of the Hamilton game other than the one on Ti-Cat TV.

[17to85]

What do we suppose the odds are of the game being archived somewhere? I gotta go out and pretend to be an athlete tomorrow night (I do a poor job pretending but that's besides the point) and I would love to be able to watch the game at my leisure after the fact. 

[gbill2004]

What do we suppose the odds are of the game being archived somewhere? I gotta go out and pretend to be an athlete tomorrow night (I do a poor job pretending but that's besides the point) and I would love to be able to watch the game at my leisure after the fact.

Same here...I've got a condo AGM I have to attend tonight so I'll miss the first half.

[Adrenaline_x]

 

 

No you take a ton of crap because of how many mental gymnastics you perform to try and make your misguided opinions seem like the stone cold truth. You have a real bad habit of believing that your own personal opinions are 100% facts and only ******* would disagree with them. 

 

heh.. This made me laugh.. Are you talking to yourself? No, But i'm pretty sure this statement would be just as true as if you were.

Difference is, he freakin OWNS it.. Burgs in denial..

 

no he doesn't...

[robynjt]

So... streamed online for anyone or just people who subscribe to TSN through TV? 

[TrueBlue]

 

 

 

 

 

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually 

That's preferable to whining about them.

 

 

For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter.

 

Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator.

 

That's not me Mike.  I don't turn everything into a personal matter.  I simply don't back down when others do.

 

Sure, I like to agitate.  Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun.  Keeps the conversations going too.

 

TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup.  You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  It doesn't.  I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off.  Not a lot of time, but some.  I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again.  I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line.  Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO.  

 

 

No, that's actually not a fact.  We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion.  Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  My answer is: Does it really matter?   

 

To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win."

 

Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that.

 

Tim Burke???    Yup, that's the way to make a point around here.  

 

You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win?  I'm certain we have better players than we are sending.  So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game.  It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team.  In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'.  I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance.  I don't agree with it, but I can see it.  I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year.  I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year.  That would mean sending less fringe players this week.  We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster.

 

I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field.  It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible.  I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots.  I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent.  I could go on, but you get my point.  

 

Is my way the only way?  Of course not!  Never said it was.

 

 

I definitely see your where you're coming from, but stating that as fact is completely inaccurate.  It is your opinion of this roster that it wasn't designed to win.  Is winning the first priority with the preseason?  Most people I think would say no, but some, like you, would say yes. Of course we would have a better chance at winning if Willy played the entire game, we had a couple of his go to receivers out there, and some of the key linemen in front of him.  But to say with fact that because these elements are not part of the game means that we don't want to win, is false.  

 

Absolutely do you want to field the best team possible.  But when you have 2 games to evaluate 80 players, of which a large chunk have never played 3 down ball before, you've got to get them into the games to see what you've ultimately got.  If this means sending a junior roster for the first preseason game, then so be it.  These guys may be young and inexperienced, but they are just as competitive as anyone we've left at home.

 

Of course we could bring along a bunch of projected starters, score a bunch a points and look really good out there against their second stringers, but what good does that do for the guys who need the playing time to show what they've learnt over the past 10 days?

[Blitzy]

So... streamed online for anyone or just people who subscribe to TSN through TV? 

 

I haven't found a solid answer on this

[mbrg]

 

So... streamed online for anyone or just people who subscribe to TSN through TV? 

 

I haven't found a solid answer on this

 

 

There isn't one, but I also can't recall TSN making any similar content publicly available since adding a subscriber log-in filter to their site.  The answer is most likely not the one you're hoping for.

[Noeller]

There is a very solid answer to your online streaming question, and it's being stated in multiple threads: Game will be on TSN.ca but only to people who are able to sign in to TSN-GO....

[Blitzy]

Looks like I'll be listening to Beautiful Bob then!

[AtlanticRiderFan]

To watch on TSN GO, you must be with one of these providers:

 

 

[Logan007]

So I signed in, but I don't see the game listed anywhere.

[TBURGESS]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually 

That's preferable to whining about them.

 

 

For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter.

 

Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator.

 

That's not me Mike.  I don't turn everything into a personal matter.  I simply don't back down when others do.

 

Sure, I like to agitate.  Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun.  Keeps the conversations going too.

 

TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup.  You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  It doesn't.  I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off.  Not a lot of time, but some.  I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again.  I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line.  Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO.  

 

 

No, that's actually not a fact.  We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion.  Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game?  My answer is: Does it really matter?   

 

To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win."

 

Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that.

 

Tim Burke???    Yup, that's the way to make a point around here.  

 

You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win?  I'm certain we have better players than we are sending.  So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game.  It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team.  In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'.  I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance.  I don't agree with it, but I can see it.  I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year.  I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year.  That would mean sending less fringe players this week.  We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster.

 

I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field.  It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible.  I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots.  I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent.  I could go on, but you get my point.  

 

Is my way the only way?  Of course not!  Never said it was.

 

 

I definitely see your where you're coming from, but stating that as fact is completely inaccurate.  It is your opinion of this roster that it wasn't designed to win.  Is winning the first priority with the preseason?  Most people I think would say no, but some, like you, would say yes. Of course we would have a better chance at winning if Willy played the entire game, we had a couple of his go to receivers out there, and some of the key linemen in front of him.  But to say with fact that because these elements are not part of the game means that we don't want to win, is false.  

 

Absolutely do you want to field the best team possible.  But when you have 2 games to evaluate 80 players, of which a large chunk have never played 3 down ball before, you've got to get them into the games to see what you've ultimately got.  If this means sending a junior roster for the first preseason game, then so be it.  These guys may be young and inexperienced, but they are just as competitive as anyone we've left at home.

 

Of course we could bring along a bunch of projected starters, score a bunch a points and look really good out there against their second stringers, but what good does that do for the guys who need the playing time to show what they've learnt over the past 10 days?

 

It's not just my opinion.  O'Shea stated that the roster is intended to evaluate the players.  There are only 3 full time starters from last years team on the roster.  It's all about evaluation, not about winning.  There shouldn't be any debate on it.  The question of 'should we send a roster that's designed to win or not' is what everyone is really typing about, with a little of the coaches know better than you do thrown in for good measure.

 

I'm not suggesting that we only send starters or that we have to win.  Both of those ideas come from other posters who pretend that's what I said so they can argue.  I'm saying we should send some starters and some guys on the bubble and the guys who have a realistic chance of making the team.  Leave the bottom groups at home because they are very unlikely to make the team anyway.  Take some additional players who are pencilled in as starters.  That would make for better evaluation of the players who need to be evaluated and give us a realistic chance of starting 2015 with a win, which obviously means nothing to a bunch of you.

 

My opinion matters about as much as every other posters around here.  Which is to say it doesn't matter at all.  When I say I'd do something different than the Bombers are doing, no matter what the topic is, a bunch of folks take it personally and set out to yell me down.  It's funny how absurd the 'arguments' get.  In this case, the roster we're sending is designed to evaluate not to win morphs into it doesn't matter if we win and you don't know anything Jon Snow (Or TBurgess in this case).  

[Rich]

If you wonder why people get upset at what you post, it is mostly because you rarely have anything positive to say or comment on the team. It makes people wonder if you really like the team Most of your posts, even if they are 'fact' come across as criticism.

Saying the Bombers aren't playing to win is a true statement.

Saying the Bombers are playing to evaluate players is another true statement.

One smacks of criticism and complaining and the other is understanding how preseason games work.

BTW I'm not saying you aren't a fan or the like. I do believe you're a huge Bomber fan and supporter. You wouldn't be here as much as you are if you weren't. Just thought I'd illustrate why people react the way they do to a lot of your posts.

Also if the bottom part of the TC roster has no chance of making the team such that they don't deserve even a chance to play in a preseason game to show what they can do in real action, why do we bother bringing them in?

[Mike]

Can we add in the part where he shares his opinion and then defends it by saying "it's just a statement of the facts"?

 

Also ...

 

Also if the bottom part of the TC roster has no chance of making the team such that they don't deserve even a chance to play in a preseason game to show what they can do in real action, why do we bother bringing them in?          

 

This x1000.

 

We've had plenty of guys who don't look great in practice come in and make their mark come game time. Plenty of the opposite as well. If you're not even going to give a guy a chance at some game reps, why did you bring him along this far in the first place?

[iHeart]

screw it let's just hope First Row has it

[mbrg]

Can we add in the part where he shares his opinion and then defends it by saying "it's just a statement of the facts"?

 

Also ...

 

Also if the bottom part of the TC roster has no chance of making the team such that they don't deserve even a chance to play in a preseason game to show what they can do in real action, why do we bother bringing them in?          

 

This x1000.

 

We've had plenty of guys who don't look great in practice come in and make their mark come game time. Plenty of the opposite as well. If you're not even going to give a guy a chance at some game reps, why did you bring him along this far in the first place?

 

Jhomo Gordon started camp at the bottom of the roster.  Evaluating him is a waste of time.  He's at the bottom of the roster.

 

THAT'S A FACT(y-like thing).

[GCn20]

It could be argued that game play is the greatest indicator for assessing a player. Therefore, you gotta play the new guys. You have two opportunities each offseason to evaluate players, and to evaluate how they fit within your system. Leaving them at home makes little sense.

There are obviously a high number of positions on the Depth Chart that are still in play, therefore, the vets stay home. Pretty simple really. If we were the Stampeders, we might have the luxury of a veteran laden pre-season roster in game one. We are not. We need to swing the axe next week, leave the guys who we know are going to be here for the 2nd game at home and dress the rest and take the best of that bunch into game 2.

[Jacquie]

So I signed in, but I don't see the game listed anywhere.

They'll have a link on the website around game time

[TBURGESS]

If you wonder why people get upset at what you post, it is mostly because you rarely have anything positive to say or comment on the team. It makes people wonder if you really like the team Most of your posts, even if they are 'fact' come across as criticism.

Saying the Bombers aren't playing to win is a true statement.

Saying the Bombers are playing to evaluate players is another true statement.

One smacks of criticism and complaining and the other is understanding how preseason games work.

BTW I'm not saying you aren't a fan or the like. I do believe you're a huge Bomber fan and supporter. You wouldn't be here as much as you are if you weren't. Just thought I'd illustrate why people react the way they do to a lot of your posts.

Also if the bottom part of the TC roster has no chance of making the team such that they don't deserve even a chance to play in a preseason game to show what they can do in real action, why do we bother bringing them in?

Both statements are facts (Just for Mike) as I said in my original post.  I started with the evaluation part.  It's simply a statement on how the Bombers chose to set up this weeks roster, not a Bombers suck statement.  Folks choose to react to the perceived negativity and ignore the rest and it's been totally blown out of proportion in the last day or so.  

 

We try to bring in competition across the board.  We need to find several starters and some backups and hopefully some players who push out last years starters.  That's the whole point of scouting, drafting and TC. That doesn't mean we have to give every one of them preseason playing time or even give them a 'real shot' at making the team.  My idea is to focus our resources mostly on those who've risen to the top against CFL competition.

 

The bottom of the roster changes, probably daily in TC.  After a week of TC, some players have worked their way up the depth chart like Jhomo Gordon.  Some are working their way down and some have started and stayed at the bottom.  I want us to evaluate those who've risen towards the top of the depth chart at their positions more closely than those who are falling or not moving up.  

 

For example I don't think we can properly evaluate 5 RB's plus 3 FB 's behind that O line in one game.  3 RB's + 2 FB's would free up 3 spots for guys like Westerman who's never played a CFL game before and Moore who missed a lot of last season and Randle who's learning a new position.

[GCn20]

So I signed in, but I don't see the game listed anywhere.

 

 

Me neither. Hopefully they put a link up to it.

[Mike]

The bottom of the roster changes, probably daily in TC.

 

If you believe practice time can influence the depth chart that severely, why would you be so against letting each of those guys get game reps?

 

Makes no sense.