TBURGESS

This year, after the injury, BLM often throws wobbly rainbows. Jefferson forced a couple of bad throws, but mostly it was BLM making bad decisions and bad throws. QB's aren't going to win throwing into triple coverage and BLM is no exception. The Stamps recievers dropped a few easily catchable balls, not cuz they heard footsteps or were worried about being hit. It's because the Stamps drop more catchable balls than most teams and because the cold made it harder to catch the ball in the first place. The DB's played well. Tightest coverage I've seen this year. That doesn't mean that the Stamps receivers didn't drop catchable balls.

You see what you want to see. BLM was off for the 2nd week in a row, no matter what the talking heads or Bomber fans say. Our defence didn't force bad throws any more than BC's did last week. Our defence didn't force the drops either. Without the drops the Stamps stay on the field and the rushing numbers go up. Number of carries isn't the number you need to look at anyway. Stamps don't have anyone in the top 10 rushing. We've got both Harris and Streveler. Calgary is a pass first offence. Jackson had 246 yards rushing all year. That's 2 or 3 games for Harris/Streveler.

Collaros > Nichols. That being said, I don't want either next year even if we win the cup this year.

Sounds to me like we get Regina without their starting QB in Regina again. Worked pretty good last year.

Those are some good reasons to give kudos to Hall this week. PLAP coaches the offence.

Adams - Only 2 catches but the first one got us out of trouble and the second one broke the Stamps back. Streveler - Doubt he can walk today, but that was one gutsy performance DB's - Tight coverage for maybe the first time this year. Fought for every ball and came away with some of them. HH - Mother Nature, the great equalizer that forced the Stamps to run the ball, which they don't do well and added to their dropsie problems. We live to fight another day. Go Bombers!

As I understand it, most coaches have a clause in their contracts that say they get paid less by the original team if they get a new job. More like a 'top up' number to pay the difference between the original contract and their new contract with their new team. That would significantly reduce the cap hit.

Just goes to show how popular opinions can be wrong. Wisdom of the crowd is how you get Boaty McBoatface.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm stating it as a fact and FTR, my opinion isn't always contrary to popular opinion.

BS. I don't care what the popular opinion is. I don't wait until it's established to form my opinion.

I wonder if Claybrooks has a clause in his contract like Campbell did where the club is on the hook for significantly less salary if he gets another job next year?

IMO the league should make a rule one way or the other but, they did follow the rules as they currently are. There is no rule that says they have to vote for a player who tested positive for PED's and there's no rule that says they can't vote for a player who tested positive for PED's.

It was their job to vote and they voted. That's what they are supposed to do. His teammates and most Bomber fans are on his side, but that obviously doesn't mean the folks who voted are.

The voters in Winnipeg made their choice, like they were supposed to do. Folks around here don't like that choice. Harris wasn't going to get the national vote anyway. If Winnipeg voters made the choice folks around here wanted, then we'd have exactly the same comments when Harris didn't make it out of the west as we had when the Winnipeg voters made their choice. The TSN talking heads made their opinions about Harris getting any awards this year known during this week's games. Only Sanchez thought that Harris should have got a vote.

I equate the NFL championship game with the CFL championship game. You equate the CFL with the Price is Right and you think you're making a valid point. 🤣

Harris can't get his sanction shortened. He already served it.

Nonsense. Even if it comes back positive, the courts have no way of knowing if Harris even took the offending test sample, let alone if that was the only thing he took or if he took the suggested amount or more. Gather up the unopened bottles? You think the company took them off the shelf and stored them in case Harris' sample came back positive? The whole lot is gone unless Harris' people bought up some of the lot at the time. Lets say you find some sealed containers from the same lot, pay to have them tested, and they turn out to be dirty. In an unregulated industry, does it even matter? It's not like the containers have a guarantee that they only contain what's on the label or that players taking them can pass the CFL drug test. Cross contamination explains it away without any liability or compensation.

Harris has zero chance of 'proving' it was a tainted supplement. There is no chain of custody. There's no one who could say, he'd take that particular supplement from that particular container and hadn't taken anything else. He could send in any sample of anything whether he'd taken it or not. He could 'Juice' the supplement sample before sending it in. Even if he didn't have chain of custody problems, how would he be able to prove that it was that supplement and that supplement only that caused his positive test? Is there a way to look at the exact % of the banned substance and match it to his blood tests?

Keep saying that, if you don't mind being wrong over and over and over and over and over again.

It's not a rule. It's an example and the NFL is the closest league comparison to the CFL.

I'm not suggesting they switched anything. They aren't east vs west and they have zero problems selling their championship game. If east vs west isn't something that makes the championship sellable in the NFL then east vs west likely won't make our championship less sellable either. Therefore, 1 division should be as sellable as 2.

My guess: WSF - Calgary over Winnipeg WF - Calgary over Regina ESF - Montreal over Edmonton EF - Hamilton over Montreal GC - Hamilton over Calgary

Every opinion is subjective. 3 out of 5 opinions disagree with yours and the general consensus of the Bomber fan forums. It's not about character, it's about testing positive for a PED. I'm not defending Lawrence and I wouldn't have voted for him if I had a vote because of his suspension.

Nope. They decided that testing positive for PED's meant he wasn't worthy of getting their nomination for MOP and MOC. It's as valid a decision as deciding that testing positive for PED's and taking the 2 game suspension doesn't matter when it comes to nominations for MOP and MOC. Penalized the same doesn't equal the same thing and you know it or at least should know it. It's a false equivalency.

Same penalty sure. Same thing? Nope. The media didn't make up their own rules. They just followed the rules that are in place and came to a decision you don't like.