August 19, 201311 yr comment_16376 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). I think it was far more likely that Mack made the call to start Buck and they used the excuse that Buck was "banged up" with the intent that Goltz would play well (someone somewhere, likely Mack, thought the issue was the QB not the OC) and then there would be no controversey because everyone would want the best QB start. When that didnt happen and Burke maybe wanted to go back to Buck, Mack came up with the "new starter for rest of season" plan.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16377 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). This is complete crap, but whatever makes you feel better. Because we all know Buck's word when it comes to his own health is always on the up-and-up.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16378 Assume we go with Buck. Makes sense. Changes to the offense, short week to get it done, new OC. Better to have the veteran in there. WHomever you like at QB, I think we can agree the veteran is likely to have a better understanding of a revamped offence. I think it somewhat eliminates a distraction too. Sure, the QB position will be a distraction until we have a bonafide starter but putting Buck back in almost seems like a calming move at this point. The QB controversey and switching from guy to guy is closely related to the upheavel of the Mack era. That is behind us now. Best to reset things, go with the veteran, calm the issue down and get back to playing. If Buck struggles, then Goltz goes in, just as he would have at any point in the season. So, why change anything, right? Go back to basic soup in the can. Yeah, why would it make sense to accept this year for what it is and find our new QB?
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16379 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). I think it was far more likely that Mack made the call to start Buck and they used the excuse that Buck was "banged up" with the intent that Goltz would play well (someone somewhere, likely Mack, thought the issue was the QB not the OC) and then there would be no controversey because everyone would want the best QB start. When that didnt happen and Burke maybe wanted to go back to Buck, Mack came up with the "new starter for rest of season" plan. We only have three quarterbacks on our roster. We *have* to dress three for game day. Pierce would never have played.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16380 We can't point to Buck's injury history as an issue this season because he hasn't missed a game due to injury. with Buck it's much less about missing games as taking all the reps in practise and then getting hurt in the game and we have to throw a backup in there without adequate preparation and don't you dare try and say that hasn't happened this season. Pierce hasn't been better than the backup qbs and when he's always getting hurt it is THE distraction so it's high time we just get rid of the guy and move on.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16384 'There are ways to keep a developed quarterback sharp, as in Bucks case' Said MB about practices, sounds like Buck won't be starting if that's the case. I didnt watch the presser so I dont know the context. Could he have meant they have done things to keep Buck sharp? ie. "how can you consider starting Buck this week when he's had no playing time?" "Because there are ways to keep him sharp". ie. He IS sharp and ready to play. I couldn't hear the question, only his response, but it sounded like going forward they would implement this into practices as Burke was allowing MB to run 2 min drills with the QB's now.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16385 If we're giving up on the season, then I guess sure, sacrifice the games to decide Hall & Goltz arent the answer. But we're two points out of the playoffs.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16386 If we're giving up on the season, then I guess sure, sacrifice the games to decide Hall & Goltz arent the answer. But we're two points out of the playoffs. But you see, that's where you're wrong. Playing Buck would be giving up the season.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16388 If we're giving up on the season, then I guess sure, sacrifice the games to decide Hall & Goltz arent the answer. But we're two points out of the playoffs. But you see, that's where you're wrong. Playing Buck would be giving up the season. Playing Buck is not only giving up on the season, it's giving up on Goltz and Hall too.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16389 If we're giving up on the season, then I guess sure, sacrifice the games to decide Hall & Goltz arent the answer. But we're two points out of the playoffs. but PIerce isn't the answer either and there's another thread on this very site that quite nicely illustrates how PIerce is not better than the other options. Going back to Pierce is a step back just like it was when they made that decision in the offseason. Time to cut your attachment to an obviously finished player.
August 19, 201311 yr Author comment_16393 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). I think it was far more likely that Mack made the call to start Buck and they used the excuse that Buck was "banged up" with the intent that Goltz would play well (someone somewhere, likely Mack, thought the issue was the QB not the OC) and then there would be no controversey because everyone would want the best QB start. When that didnt happen and Burke maybe wanted to go back to Buck, Mack came up with the "new starter for rest of season" plan. That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16394 Welcome back Buck...and by the third Quarter welcome back Max Hall.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16395 Welcome back Buck...and by the third Quarter welcome back Max Hall. You think he'll last that long?
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16396 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). I think it was far more likely that Mack made the call to start Buck and they used the excuse that Buck was "banged up" with the intent that Goltz would play well (someone somewhere, likely Mack, thought the issue was the QB not the OC) and then there would be no controversey because everyone would want the best QB start. When that didnt happen and Burke maybe wanted to go back to Buck, Mack came up with the "new starter for rest of season" plan. That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional. Not true (unless the league or the PA has made changes in the CBA in that regard). in 2003, the club dressed Khari Jones and Brian Stallworth as their ONLY quarterbacks for a number of games while Pat Barnes was trying out with the Cleveland Browns.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16399 http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_ratio Each team may have a maximum of 42 players, including 3 players who shall be identified as quarterbacks and 39 other players, of whom not more than 19 may be imports. Teams must have a minimum of 41 players, including two players who shall be identified as quarterbacks and 39 other players, of whom not more than 19 may be imports. Each team must establish a reserve roster of 4 players. These 4 players may be imports or non-imports. But really, if you have no one else, why wouldn't you dress Buck to have him on the sidelines, even if he is hurt, just to have his input.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16400 Either way, on both sides of this argument...we're screwed...we don't have any QB's that are good enough. That's the end of the story unforunately. And it's so pathetic. Goltz and Hall have not did enough to prove us anything either....well besides that they both suck as well. All they have are maybe they'll develop...some day...and that's bareley a hope.
August 19, 201311 yr Author comment_16401 if he was injured and could not play, he would not have been dressed. Period. He said so himself that he was healthy and able (I realise most players will say that but when a player is injured, he knows he is injured). I think it was far more likely that Mack made the call to start Buck and they used the excuse that Buck was "banged up" with the intent that Goltz would play well (someone somewhere, likely Mack, thought the issue was the QB not the OC) and then there would be no controversey because everyone would want the best QB start. When that didnt happen and Burke maybe wanted to go back to Buck, Mack came up with the "new starter for rest of season" plan. That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional. Not true (unless the league or the PA has made changes in the CBA in that regard). in 2003, the club dressed Khari Jones and Brian Stallworth as their ONLY quarterbacks for a number of games while Pat Barnes was trying out with the Cleveland Browns. True, you got me on a minor technicality. You don't have to dress three quarterbacks according to the CBA but you can only dress 39 non-quarterbacks so if you sit Buck, you only dress 41 players. I guess technically, they could have put him on the 1-game IR and not put him in uniform, but if he's available that would be a silly option considering you can be too injured to play QB but be healthy enough to say ... take a knee to end a half or pin the ball on a convert or something.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16408 Either way, on both sides of this argument...we're screwed...we don't have any QB's that are good enough. That's the end of the story unforunately. And it's so pathetic. Goltz and Hall have not did enough to prove us anything either....well besides that they both suck as well. All they have are maybe they'll develop...some day...and that's bareley a hope. This post makes my head hurt on several different levels.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16410 Either way, on both sides of this argument...we're screwed...we don't have any QB's that are good enough. That's the end of the story unforunately. And it's so pathetic. Goltz and Hall have not did enough to prove us anything either....well besides that they both suck as well. All they have are maybe they'll develop...some day...and that's bareley a hope. This post makes my head hurt on several different levels. "Goltz and Hall have not did enough..." <3
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16414 Can we discuss Marcel's purple shirt on here or does it need it's own thread? Can somebody hook the guy up with some team apparel?
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16417 Can we discuss Marcel's purple shirt on here or does it need it's own thread? Can somebody hook the guy up with some team apparel? Ha, that was the 1st thing I noticed. He should have consulted with somebody.
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16451 Can we discuss Marcel's purple shirt on here or does it need it's own thread? Can somebody hook the guy up with some team apparel? Ha, that was the 1st thing I noticed. He should have consulted with somebody. He's ready for Vikings camp if it doesn't work out here anyway LOL
August 19, 201311 yr comment_16457 Super. We lost to Hamilton when our defense was good and our Pierce-led offense sucked. Now we've got a crappy defense and a Pierce-led offense. Pierce is genital herpes to this team. He's not good for you and he keeps coming back.
_4ce1be.png)
_4ccb55.png)
_b2ed7a.png)
Create an account or sign in to comment