HardCoreBlue

Well the person that counts who currently makes that argument is Paul Maurice. The rest of us don't count. :-)

Bingo Bango Bongo.

Well, your opinion does not seem to jive with Paul Maurice. My evidence? He's not forced to dress Thorburn at all, but sometimes he does. He has the available depth to never dress him.

We had more than 10 seconds. Go and get the first down. Next play, run the ball to the centre hashmarks. Third play, kick the field goal for the win. Fourth play, celebrate. Fifth play, prepare for the Stamps.

Because, when matching up with who they are playing that day, Paul Maurice sometimes inserts him to the lineup that he believes helps the team. When he's not needed, he scratches him. He seems to be one of those players that will be in and out of the lineup throughout the year not just because of injuries.

Shocking, an athlete having confidence he can do something, whether it's realistic to achieve in a game or not. In this particular case a 61 yard field goal that you have to hit perfect as a line drive and because of that, risk it will be blocked at the line of scrimmage going at game speed. Would Nichols have been given the benefit of the doubt? How many times do you see a QB 'encouraging' his coach to go for it on 3rd down and how many times do you see a coach ignore it? I'm wondering if Nichols had any type of conversation with MOS to go for it on 3rd down? What's done is done, I was over it the same day it happened. 2017 will be our year.

Is that true? If so, I would find that surprising.

Nowadays, regardless of who it is, it's called 99% of the time. I just think the pendulum has swung where we are witnessing a drastic change in how this game is being played. I understand why but . . .

One can be disappointed in the play call and not be a armchair coach. It can happen.

Nope, not this guy. If we don't make the first down, my disappointment lay with why we don't make the first down. No more no less. Next year is our year and fast approaching 30 years saying that. #can'tlosehopethough

True but BC in this specific situation may be in a more vulnerable position in taking one. I assume (complete assumption because I've never looked this up) that D tales more penalties than O in certain situations but I could be wrong.

That's a great point. I'd like to ask CFL Officiating does the rule dictate that Loffler still gets penalized even if he caught the ball, i.e player in a vulnerable position?

What if you factor in the chances of BC taking a penalty on a 3rd and four gamble versus a 61 yard field goal?

To distract us from our current misery. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on Loffler's hit on Manny Arceneaux. Do you agree that these types of hits should be taken out of football? Coaching PeeWee football this year, we were penalized on a few occasions both offense and defense in taking out players that didn't see it coming from a blocking or tackling point of view. And I'm not talking about the penalties that occurred 30 yards away from the play where a player takes out an an unsuspecting opposition. Those I agree in being penalized. I'm all for player safety and I don't want to see players experience long term effects but I struggle with accepting that these types of hits being outlawed. Isn't there onus on all players to be aware of one's surroundings? Like in Hockey not keeping your head up when receiving a pass? Anyways, I'd like to hear what other's think.

You can't just pin this on D my friend.

Blown coverage moreso than soft I think.

Actually I didn't think our D played all that bad, not great, more average but not horrible.

Let people react. We've earned it. It will go away after a few days.

Personally, I can guarantee you I wouldn't have had the 'should have tried a 60 yarder'.

4 yards? Yeesh. What a way to lose. MOS will be kicking himself for a couple of days on this one. Loffler's my man though. What a football hit. Don't like to see Manny hurt but what a clean pure hit that's unfortunately being taken out of the game.

My thinking is Collaros embellished a bit plus not enough conclusive evidence to reverse non call.

Collaros what was he thinking? I hope we see Jennings make those same decisions . . .

Good luck Lion fan. :-)

Say hi to Kitchener for me :-).

No it's not better because it's pure speculation about what what goals and expectations have been set out for this team, or using your words from the franchise overlords. Some of us believe/speculate it's a combo of development and making the playoffs. I just can't see a conversation between Chevy and Ownership suggesting that making the playoffs will be a bonus as long as we see 'progression'. If indeed that is the case, Chevy has a great gig