Sard

Tough to build a winning team around him though with that albatross of a contract he has.

Wow, that's pretty bad that they can't even get that right... it's pretty easy to check the scores of the game, and knowing that the Labour Day game was in the middle of our 9 game winning streak makes an error like that in an article very questionable.

I think that having a training camp with the team will help and he will show a bit better than he did this year, but overall, he seems like he'll be a middling QB who doesn't deserve the contract that BC threw at him.

There's the pick... And of course it had to be Milligan so the media can slobber all over him.

Why are the BC receivers not going out of bounds to stop the clock?

Not even remotely, they overpaid before asking him to prove himself and that was a big mistake.

He's limping around now too... Seen that one before when things went sideways for him.

That being said, if Rourke had played, I don't think BC even has 19.

I have a feeling VAJ is throwing another pick on this drive.

To stop the clock and try to keep as much time on the clock for their next possession.

Yes, that is correct.

I don't know the rule, but I believe that it should be treated like any scoring or potential scoring play that automatically gets reviewed. Any turnover or potential turnover should be automatically reviewed.

Looked like a INT to me.

It's probably more expensive/dangerous to remove because of the size and weight of it.

With a 9 team league, someone has to have a bye week every week. Agreed though that having 3 teams off at the same time should be eliminated come October.

You misunderstand my comment about the camera angle. What I'm saying is that the camera angle that they have showed that the ball was clearly 1 yard further up field from where they spotted it when his knee touched. The fact that the camera angle is where it is, indicates that the ball was even a little further ahead than that, so the spot of the ball was at least a yard short of where he got it, but it should have been spotted a full yard further up field based on the angle that they do have.

Rewatched the 2 plays and it's very clear that on the sack, the defenders hand is right in the middle of Collaros' back so it should have been a horse collar penalty (1:44:00). On the 3rd and 17 play, they spotted the ball a full yard short of where it was when Collaros' knee hit the ground (1:48:12). Though the camera angle isn't 100% correct, if anything, the ball is further ahead than what it would look like because of the angle.

I haven't rewatched it on tv, but from where I was sitting in the stands, it seemed pretty clear that the guy had Collaros wrapped up and then grabbed the back of his collar to bring him down on the sack. I was shocked at the time that a horse collar wasn't called. As the play went down and the game ended, it was reminiscent of the non-PI call on the pick 6 that basically ended the last game against Toronto.

Then I'm disappointed that the refs missed it.

I thought the tackle on the play that put them in 3rd and 17 was a horse collar, and I'm surprised O'Shea didn't challenge that. We should have been up 22 yards from where we were with a first down.

Stay safe down there, and good luck finding the game.

Curious who you would rank above him. An argument could definitely be made for Nichols, who else would you consider?

Lucky was lined up towards the other side of the field and the punter kicked it away from him so he had to run across the field. It also ended up being a bit short, so it looked like Lucky was that much farther away from it. I disagree with your comment that he's lost out there.

Lucky was running across the field to get to that one Hallett tried to catch it.

The fact that we were so far ahead had Edmonton going for it on some 3rd down plays where they would have otherwise punted or kicked field goals, so if the game was closer, I don't think that they actually score as many points as they did.