GCn20

It's a matter of angle. Nothing to do with Strev. Your OTs have to lock down the edge and not allow an inch of penetration. No QB is gonna get the edge if they get strung out.

That's a few times this year they have run that exact play and no one has gone with Strev. I'm thinking they are not shielding the ball enuff or something on film is telling the D that it's going to BO

He played lights out yesterday I've been saying this since he left. Dru loved it here and there very well might be a good chance we can bring him home. Tougher now that Ottawa looks competitive tho.

I agree. We saw it vs Calgary as well. It may not be his optimal usage but he certainly is capable of bringing down balls in tight coverage. Best to just soundly defeat them back to back. Tiebreaker don't matter but the points do.

It's not huge tho. It's maybe an inch over average From a friend of mine who knows Gray, it wasn't a money thing at all. Geoff was ready to move on.

So who does the Riders have that qualifies as such? Big guys does not equate to winning contested balls. Lawler is average size and is one of the best in the CFL at it. You don't need to be 6'4. You need to have exceptional concentration, body control, timing, and hands.

In fairness, Wilson seems to be that type of receiver as well.

I get the PR angle if we have a couple open spots for a week or two but Walters needs to end this as you suggest.

I agree. We exposed him last year by running at him with awesome results and then his DC was forced to make Betts start being gap responsible instead of going pure pass rush every play and his numbers fell off dramatically.

He is a canuck starter for 8 games. Are the draft picks worth more than that? I believe so. Had Betts come back on a multi-year contract, I would agree with your argument. However, he's made it well known that he will be shopping his services to the highest bidder at the end of this year.

Harris you need to hit him early then just let him spray balls all over the field when he hears the footsteps after that. Early in his career Harris would stand in and deliver, now he panics.

300k+ over is the loss of your first two picks.

Obviously. It's boom or bust for them in that regard. However, it does come at a cost down the road and I don't feel that Betts will be a difference maker, or at least not enough of one. They added Rourke and Betts at great expense and for this year I don't feel it minimizes any of their weaknesses really. I can understand the Rourke signing given he is a franchise QB that will likely be better than what they had for the next few years. Betts at 150k for the remainder.....doesn't help them enough imo.

Oops, my bad....had the games reversed. However, sitting Adams against Rourke makes pretty good sense now in hind sight. I guess that's why we shouldn't over react to roster moves without knowing our teams game plan week in and week out. Pretty obvious that pressure wasn't our priority vs. Rourke and rightfully so. Rourke had one chance to beat us and that is quick hitters and we took that away as you described.

We were getting nice pressure on him. Were we getting coverage help absolutely. However, at the end of the day we were making life miserable for him with a 3 man front for a lot of the game. Was talking about the donut against Adams. We played Rourke exactly as we should have but not the same as Adams. Against Rourke it was like we almost wanted to give him time to throw knowing he would be completely out of sync with his receivers anyway.

Hamilton's OL is average at best. Having Adams in the lineup was a non-factor and sometimes that's how it rolls. I think we get caught up in the minutae around here sometimes about how impactful one person can be in a DL rotation. It's helpful but not a game changer.

We were able to drop 9 because we were getting consistent pressure with a 3 man front. That was without Adams.

Sure...but that still doesn't negate losing 2 draft picks. It offsets the losses but it doesn't make them go away. Instead on having 4 potential (trade and NAT content) picks the Lions would have 2 meaning they have lost all value for Adams and playing NAT players. It's very poor roster management.

Of course we should play our best lineup. However, I am confident in our ability to play without Adams. Would I like him there....sure...if we don't have him are we screwed...nope.

Sure,,,but they would still lose 2 draft picks. Gaining one doesn't negate that.

Or possibly two draft picks.

I like Adams a lot, but we will get our pressure whether he plays or not. Our best defensive effort of the year both on the DL and overall against BC was without him in the lineup. Are we better with him? Certainly. Are we capable of playing great defence without him...absolutely.

Yea....the expanded PRs and the change to eligibility pretty much guarantee that NFL teams can keep their OL pipeline filled almost indefinitely. It was a smart move by the NFL to protect their QBs.

At one time, many moons ago, Harris was a very good QB. His time in Edmonton absolutely wrecked him though. The guy hears footsteps on every play now.

I have no issues with the BC Lions blowing out their brains on SMS on two players. Both are highly over rated imo. Rourke isn't much better than what they already had as VA was playing good football for them, and Betts is a one trick pony who was badly exposed last year by the Bombers. Other teams seem to have trouble with him, but we gave them a blue print on how to make him look like a tool out there. RUN AT HIM.