Fact: you have expressed repeatedly how the Bombers have only found one good starting QB in the last 50 years.
Conjecture: that statistic means that Danny McManus will automatically fail in finding talent because past regimes did
You lament the lack of home grown QB success we have had, and now that we are going that route with McGuire you want to abandon that plan and being in a veteran. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. McGuire is not being handed the job, there are more than 2 QBs signed to come to camp. And he did earn a spot in competition last year, beating out incumbent Brian Bennett (and outplaying Streveler in pre-season by all metrics). Now with Streveler gone he has, temporarily at least, moved up the depth chart. You label those who believe he has skills as “only seeing the most positive outcome” where he is the next Bo Levi, which, unless you can provide an actual citation where someone said that, is not a FACT. You also say when we bring up Dane Evans as another example “congratulations, you have identified the 1 in a million case where it worked out” which is also not a FACT. And is not remotely accurate as conjecture. Your claim that you are wired to look at the most likely outcome makes the assumption that failure is the most likely outcome. That is not a FACT either, that is your perception. And it could be argued that it is comparable to saying “when a QB throws a pass, 3 things can happen, and 2 of them are bad” to suggest that there is a 67% chance of incompletion or interception, so failure there is the most likely outcome (ignoring that most QB’s have a completion percentage of over 50% at minimum).
I can accept that there are concerns about the lack of experienced depth at QB behind Collaros, and with Collaros’ injury history, maybe we should have more insurance. That is fair comment and worthy of debate. But you have trouble sticking to that argument when challenged and go off on exaggerated “one in a million” claims to double down on your point, and then act surprised and get defensive (that’s my conjecture, I won’t call that a fact) when people see you as overly negative.
The conjecture, not fact, is that if Collaros goes down that may thrust MCGuire into a starting role he is not ready for and we will struggle. We may be “hooped” as you say. But it does not make it a fact that this is the most likely outcome. And frankly, every team outside of Hamilton and maybe Toronto would be in the same boat if their starter went down. And Hamilton would have said that last year when Evans was untested behind Masoli. Same with the Riders and Fajardo behind Collaros. Hopefully a full year to heal in 2019 and then another bonus year without contact, coupled with a much better offensive line, will allow Collaros to have completely recovered and we won’t have to find out what happens if he goes down.
Final thought - we have a salary cap and need to make choices. We have opted to spend money on keeping a strong front 7 on defence and a solid o-line and running back on offence (and until Medlock’s retirement, we spent a lot on our kicking game). That leads to shortfalls in money elsewhere, like back-up QB. I am OK with that plan if it creates a stronger overall starting group of players. This management group seems to have figured it out, to the tune of a championship team. I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now on their roster management.