WBBFanWest

It's understandable. I'm leery of someone who says they don't want extra attention just wants to play football, yet signs up for a reality tv show and agrees to hold a press conference announcing his signing in Montreal. I think if he really didn't want extra attention he might have asked what happens when every other American player who washed out of the NFL before even playing a meaningful game signs in the CFL and said let's do that. I respect that he's being open and there's a risk in that, but it's pretty clear that the media attention is something he's playing into at this point, not trying to avoid.Kind of presumptions for any of us to know the pressures being put on the young man, and undoubtedly being pulled in a million different directions.You can guess his intentions, and you could be right or wrong, but the reality is you have no context to base it in. I doubt Michael Sam asked for a press conference, and I doubt he truly wanted a reality show, quite frankly. Team: Hey Michael, we'd like you to be at a press conference to announce your signing.Sam: You know, I'm just here to play. I'd rather not, if it's all the same. Thanks. Agent: Hey Michael, want to do a reality show? Sam: No. I'm thinking that it might not have been as hard as you're suggesting. And I'm willing to bet he has way more pressure than you give it credit. People follow this story, and this player, on and off the field. You might be entirely right, but I'm of the opinion that life is choice and when you make a choice you don't then turn around and bemoan the choice you made. So if he chooses to put himself into the eye of the storm, he shouldn't complain that he's there. And by the way, when I say choice, I'm NOT talking about his orientation.

It's understandable. I'm leery of someone who says they don't want extra attention just wants to play football, yet signs up for a reality tv show and agrees to hold a press conference announcing his signing in Montreal. I think if he really didn't want extra attention he might have asked what happens when every other American player who washed out of the NFL before even playing a meaningful game signs in the CFL and said let's do that. I respect that he's being open and there's a risk in that, but it's pretty clear that the media attention is something he's playing into at this point, not trying to avoid. Kind of presumptions for any of us to know the pressures being put on the young man, and undoubtedly being pulled in a million different directions. You can guess his intentions, and you could be right or wrong, but the reality is you have no context to base it in. I doubt Michael Sam asked for a press conference, and I doubt he truly wanted a reality show, quite frankly. Team: Hey Michael, we'd like you to be at a press conference to announce your signing. Sam: You know, I'm just here to play. I'd rather not, if it's all the same. Thanks. Agent: Hey Michael, want to do a reality show? Sam: No. I'm thinking that it might not have been as hard as you're suggesting.

I'm interested in this too

Where do you live? I live in Saint John, NB. I moved from Saskatoon a week and a half ago. I am like 3 hours ahead of Fort Mac, lol. When you leave Saskatchewan, do you get to keep the banjo and overalls, or do they have to be turned in?

I agree, the coaches show has never been more entertaining. As in "Oh my god, look at that car wreck, slow down, I want to get a better look." entertaining

The reporters do in fact ask about Richards. They did it last night in O'Shea's postgame interview (4:25)... but you won't like his answer http://www.bluebombe...index/id/110947 He clearly says Richardson. Well, if you add a son to Richards then.... he would be talking about Richards' kid

The reporters do in fact ask about Richards. They did it last night in O'Shea's postgame interview (4:25)... but you won't like his answer http://www.bluebombe...index/id/110947 He clearly says Richardson.

Ok, other than that, where does he say that Richards is a crappy player?

I started listening, then heard that this would be nothing more than a replay of their earlier interviews and I didn't bother. I'm expecting that prior to next game we're going to hear Bud Grant talking about his opinion on the state of the Bombers.

So I had to miss most of the game last night because of work. Tell me TBurgess, how bad did we end up losing this?

I sure hope that the Bombers don't lose this critically important game, or else I'm going to be like

Sadly, when I called my cable company about TSN GO at this time last year, they told me they were looking into it. Apparently this is a real complex issue because they are still looking into it.

I'd rather that the team do whatever it thinks best to evaluate the talent it's brought in. If that means playing more rookie types to see if they can do the little things right, blocking assignments, routes, coverage etc, then do it. Because the focus isn't on winning, it's on assessing. If they didn't even bother keeping score during exhibition I'd be just fine with that. I'd rather lose the completely irrelevant battles that are exhibition games and win the war, but then again, I'm not trying to argue for arguments sake.

Well, if a politician says it, it's got to be true.

TBurgess is busy this morning so he asked me to post this for him so that everyone can get a understanding about how excited he is for this exhibition game:

Then a winner would be determined by playing Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock... oh wait. https://youtu.be/ROhPZtLSfDA I prefer two man sack races on consecutive sundays. People, come on. The only way to settle this is a good old fashioned trial-by-combat. Nothing says "I'm right" like a head on a pike.

Where did you see that?

Its the way you write your posts that makes me skip over them usually That's preferable to whining about them. For a guy who always says "argue the post, not the poster", you sure do have an interesting habit of always turning everything into a personal matter. Just wish you were a little more honest with yourself, not even with us. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to observe the fact that you love the role you play around here as the forum agitator. That's not me Mike. I don't turn everything into a personal matter. I simply don't back down when others do. Sure, I like to agitate. Makes folks think and it can be a lot of fun. Keeps the conversations going too. TrueBlue... 'Obviously not trying to win' is simply a statement of fact based on the lineup. You really think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? It doesn't. I'd like to see more of the vets get some reps to work the rust off. Not a lot of time, but some. I'd like to see what some of our better rookies look like beside our vets rather than getting a look at rookie after rookie after rookie, most of whom won't start again. I'd be very reluctant to put Willy out behind that O line. Seems like a recipe for failure rather than success and success breeds more success IMO. No, that's actually not a fact. We've never seen this lineup together before in any type of game, so stating that anyone is not trying to win is strictly your opinion, and only an opinion. Do I think that lineup shows a desire to win the game? My answer is: Does it really matter? To quote Tim Burke: "If we win, we win." Vets will get worked in more next week, you know that. Tim Burke??? Yup, that's the way to make a point around here. You won't admit that the roster hasn't been built to win? I'm certain we have better players than we are sending. So yah... it's a fact that the roster doesn't show a desire to win this game. It shows a desire to give a lot guys a shot at making the team. In a lot of cases, their last shot, but that's not the same thing at all. Your question of 'does it matter?' is a very different question than 'have we sent a roster built to win?'. I can see the argument for sending a roster of second, third and fourth string players to give them a chance. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I'm fairly certain that the coaches already have a good idea, barring injuries, what most of the team will look like this year. I'm for giving the guys with the best chance the most reps with the guys who will be their teammates this year. That would mean sending less fringe players this week. We can always play them next week when we can carry a bigger roster. I'm strongly in favour of doing our best to win each and every time we step on the field. It's an expectation that needs to be instilled in the team as soon as possible. I'd rather see guys like Westerman and Hajrullahu than the guys we sent to play their spots. I'd rather see our top 2 receivers giving the QB's a better shot at looking good than the guys we sent. I could go on, but you get my point. Is my way the only way? Of course not! Never said it was. You're absolutely right.

As I understand it, the purpose of the exhibition season is to see what we've got. Who are the starters, who are the backups, who's going home. The score is irrelevant. Also, I think that most people understand that the team can only bring so many guys to the away exhibition game, so that one tends to be for those that there are still some questions about. So for those penciled in as a starter already, is there a point in bringing most or all of them? No, there isn't. Of course, I think that TBurgess knows all of this too, but he got what he was looking for by arguing this "they need to win" silliness. You know what would drive him to distraction? If everyone just agreed with him.

As others have said, sure is nice when the drama llama decides to visit someone else for a change.

It wasn't just Kelly's coaching abilities that scuttled him here. fixed.

Remember that what Kory alleges and what can actually be proven might not be quite as cut an dried as you seem to think. Let me give you a few examples: 1 - not providing independent doctors: Is there a requirement for the employer to do this? Did the player undertake to have this done on his own if the team refused? If it is required that the team provide this service and refused, did the employee ask for the union to get involved? Who defines what an "independent doctor is? 2 - not providing the best helmet technology: what exactly is "the best technology"? What metrics are used to come to that decision? Is adequate technology sufficient? (Does the company have to supply a cadillac, or will a chevy do?) 3 - Disseminating misinformation: Specifically, what information are we talking about? Just because the employee disagrees with the employer's opinion does not make it "misinformation". Can it be proved that the team knew that the information they were providing was inaccurate and yet did so anyway? And those are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are many more. Again, bear in mind that just because a lawyer says something doesn't make him right. That's why there are courts and that's why plaintiffs actually lose from time to time.

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying that this is simple at all. Rather I'm saying that this is a very complex issue. Sure players can sue. Kory can make whatever claims he wants, that's the easy part. Now comes the hard part; proving your claims.

He's finally found a league where the shotgun is illegal and the jet formation rules supreme. Good for Mike.

repeated my post - deleted