Sard

They have been talking about it a bit on the CJOB over the past couple of days, but that's about it. Almost feels like they thought that since it's the NFL it will just sell itself and they don't have to put any effort in.

That's why Dickenson has the QB glance in that direction before turning to throw to the other side of the field. The argument then is that because of the contact, the QB had to look the other way so it did technically affect the play. You could see that he never had any intention of throwing in that direction, but it creates the argument for the penalty. It's total crap and a cheap play by Dickenson. I've always respected how O'Shea uses technicallities in the rules to make exciting plays happen, but he never did it in a cheap way like Dickenson does.

Watching the game again after the fact, the Illegal Contact call with about 4 minutes left was utter bulls#!t. Sayles was standing there and the receiver ran right into him. That has Dickenson written all over it. It was plays like that where he went fishing with his challenges that made the league change it to only allow 1 challenge. He won them almost every time, but it was the receivers causing the contact every time. The QB barely glanced in that direction and never had any intention of throwing there. That play pisses me off because if it was called properly, the D had the stop that they needed and the end of the game is far less stressful.

At the game, I commented on that as well. There were about 4 or 5 spots that were a good half yard short of where I thought forward progress was.

Wear a hat and sunglasses, the sun isn't that bad... West Side Sucks!!!

Way ahead of you

Chris Matthews

I also don't think there was clear video evidence to overturn the spot. If it was clear (and the spotters would have seen it), then they would have challenged, but likely knew it would be a waste. The camera angle on the measurement was terrible too because it looked short.

Chris Matthews

One of the picks that ended up being double coverage had 2 receivers running basically side-by-side. I would hazard to guess that one of them was supposed to pull up on a shorter route which would have taken the 2nd defender out of the play. I think that one was on the receiver who wasn't supposed to be there (I think it was Lucky on the outside who's defender jumped in and took the ball from the intended receiver).

I will agree that they did well at bringing pressure.

The comment you made was that "WITH THEIR BACKUP QB" they made us look like "pure crap", which is not the case at all. The fact that Nichols was in a funk and couldn't pull it out of the fire has nothing to do with how Hamilton's backup QB played.

Pretty sure there were complaints when we beat Toronto last time, and that was by 27. Ridiculous questions like "how could we let them score 21 points?" and "why didn't we score more in the 2nd half?". Some people around here just can't seem to be happy no matter how the team is playing.

They scored a total of 9 points with that backup QB in for 3 quarters. It's a bit of a stretch to say that they made us look like crap with him in the game.

And Brodie Lawson thinks it'll compete with the Rum Hut... I don't think she's seen the crowd at the Rum Hut if she thinks that was even close to the same.

Darvin Adams

My only issue with Sayles is that he seems to sell out attempting to get the 'big hit' too often and doesn't wrap the ball carrier up. He's good for at least 1 or 2 every game where he can stop a guy for no YAC yards if he just puts his arms out, but he tries to knock guys off balance or out of bounds instead and usually just glances off of them.

Lucky Whitehead

Streveler

I thought we had 8 Canadian starters in Ottawa. If that was the case, no worries.

Andrew Harris

I think I remember one throw into the endzone by Edmonton, but it was at least 5 yards away from the receiver so no chance to catch it. I could be recalling incorrectly though. Either way, the Bomber D did a great job of taking that option away all night.

How do you figure they got the catch and fumble wrong? In slow-mo, it may have looked like he had the ball in his possession for quite a while, but in real-time he barely touched the ground and was hit immediately after that and lost the ball. That's an incomplete pass every day of the week.

Headers in soccer could cause some pretty wicked brain movement. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's where it's coming from.

Wolitarsky