Bigblue204

There is no debate. You're stupid.

You have to be a God damn ******* moron to be complaining about the way the defense played today. End of story 1 td in 3 games...done. theres no argument against that.

I believe Lucky is his nickname...

Lol I fixed it

Chris matthews

Yeah the beat down they put on TO made me rethink the ol "over hyped" talk about Hammy. That was a legit performance by every aspect of their team. You don't drop 60 points very often in football and to do so, you need to be playing a **** team, but also need to be a very efficient team.

Cant give Davis the early/quick reads. Ssk was doing that to him all game and he torched them. Bring pressure, and disguise coverage and Davis will hold on to the ball like it's his child.

Oddly enough, the last few years it seems to be the away team that gets it done between these two teams. Saying that. Trevor Harris is no longer there, and the bomber coaches have a very good understanding of Davis.

The good part about TO sucking so bad, it makes picking fantasy players a bit easier...loading up on BC WR's this week.

Lol, sure....youre less wrong then me...if that makes you feel better. Either way, you're still wrong.

I think it will get better

Close, it's more in line with hypothetical situations being equal due to the fact they can not be proven. Unless of course we take whatever it is that you do, that allows you to see these hypothetical situations unfold. You're hypothetical situation where lucky doesn't play, leaves out the fact that he would have been replaced with another player, game plans would have changed and the offense would have looked different....key word there is different. Not worse, not better. Just different. Your opinion is that it would have been worse (which is why they would have lost) mine was they would have been exponentially better. Neither can be proven, even though yours was based in reality a bit more, it was still a ******* ridiculous thing to say.

Yes very good. Way to get my point.

Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument.

Can you send me some of whatever it is that you take, that allows you to see into different dimensions? Next you're going to say, without a football, we wouldn't be playing football. Or something magical like, Without IGF the Bombers would be playing somewhere else. Your insight is refreshing and delightful.

Hes also never been shut out...by anyone...ever.

He can only beat who is put in front of him. You're right though, I'm sure if Collaros were playing things would have been much different, just look at the last time Nichols played against Collaros. The riders at least scored some points in the Wsf.

Enjoy Reilly and his stats

I'm sorry that I like QBs who win football games. Like I said, it's ok if you dont. We just have different standards/preferences.

I wish I could heart this.

I was more inspired by the WSF game personally.

Yeah thatbwasnt what I meant. I meant, if a healthy Bo stayed in, would the results have been the same.

Remember that time 5+ years into Peyton's career when he missed the playoffs....? Do you? Do you remember that year? No...you dont. Because he is a great qb who didnt miss the playoffs. For me the difference between good and great, is lifting your team to win when they shouldn't have. When you didnt really have the best team, even when you had to make up for other parts of your team due to lack of talent. Reilly did that years ago. He no longer is....he was great,he is now good. That will change to mediocre if the losing continues. This is just my opinion. It's fine if you're ok with QBs who dont win. That's perfectly acceptable. I just like when the qb I cheer for wins more then he loses.

Your bias is showing. I never mentioned he couldn't move the ball. Not winning the game, shows he didnt do what a great qb would have. I can guarantee he feels the same.

No I'm not. I'm saying Reilly is a good qb, because he can obviously move the ball well enough. He is not a great qb, and hasnt been for at least the better part of a year, due to the fact that he doesnt do whatever is needed to win football games. Good qb yes, great no.