Geebrr

People really seem to have extra dislike for Michael Sam.

Paul Wiecek corrected for saying in a story that the Bombers hadn't won in Calgary since 2002. Thankfully for him, nobody reads his stories, or expects them to be accurate.

All the best to him, tough break, and bad timing.

At least you remain in NDP territory.

Too bad that Allen had a poor showing. I was hoping he could find a spot given his hype, but he clearly failed to impress. Another example of college play not being the be all and end all of career trajectory.

Haha...can't see Cauchy fitting in well playing closer to the LOS

With this one post you did more reporting than every media guy in the city yesterday combined. We thank you. But damn, I want to hear how the pump looked today. Is it still there? Did they replace it with another pump? And, if so, how does that impact on our Super Bowl hopes?

With this one post you did more reporting than every media guy in the city yesterday combined. We thank you.

Richards! OMFG! Amidst reports he doesn't want to play here, even!

Agreed. Plus, boring as it can be, special teams are the difference between making or not making the roster for a lot of guys.

Troy Kopp helped beat the Riders in the highlight of that year. He wasn't a starter either

Goltz showed enough to show he wasn't a starter.

I did used to think that if a game was tied at the closing seconds, a team shouldn't have to lose a game because somebody shanked a FG and the ball either went out the back of the endzone or the opposing team failed to get it out, That to me was something I originally saw as a bad play that was falsely rewarded, but as you can't really just kill a clock and run it down to the closing seconds that easily, and as that scenario doesn't happen too much in this league, it actually does add a great twist to the game. Plus the opposing team if they can't get it out can also kick it back out of the endzone into the field of play if I recall right, so there is that. Plus it can also be a benefit to a team that's down by 1, misses a fg, and gets a rouge out of it. Plus as opponents get the ball at the 35 yardline, most teams aren't going to go for it. I feel the same. I used to, but do not anymore. We have each done 180s.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why. You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule. Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks. Yup. Apparently we can make the OT an Arcade game, but the loser point stays. There are loser points in hockey for losing in OT or the Shootout. And that rule has only been in place for a decade or two... At least it goes away in the playoffs.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why. You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule. It's not a point for missing a field goal, it a point for kicking a ball into the endzone and preventing the other team from returning it out of the endzone. Then give a point on turnovers in the end zone. More excitement!

And they want to move to a pay per read system.

I would trade that for not losing a game on a loser point. Personally. The vast vast majority of the time nothing happens on those plays. Vast.

But the play doesn't happen unless you miss a field goal. Aguy intercepts or recovers a fumble, his team doesn't give up a point for not getting it out of the end zone. I just don't like the rule.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why. You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule. Throw back to our rugby roots or not .. the concept of rewarding failure sucks. Yup. Apparently we can make the OT an Arcade game, but the loser point stays.

why do you get 2 points on a safety? Why 3 when you kick the ball through the uprights? Why 6 when you advance the ball into the endzone? Because it's in the rules that's why. You shouldn't get a point for missing a field goal, but yes a rule is a rule.

Also the most consistent..... unfortunately! I'm not even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the "Super Bowl" comment being intentional.

Once again the local media does a great job primarily explaining what isn't happening, players not on the field, and nothing else. The worst media.

I also dislike the goal posts being in the way, but can't think of a reasonable alternative.

I take it more as why do you get a single point. Which is a valid question.

That would be hilarious.