Eternal optimist

You're splitting hairs here, either statement is pointing fingers and creates divisiveness. It is mildly ironic that you defend his prejudice statement with a prejudice statement of your own. You are assuming that the only individuals offended are a certain group of people ("the White PC Police", your words), and yet like Cherry, you have nothing to substantiate or backup those claims.

If Cherry had been willing to make an apology, either in person or writing, Rogers might've given him a pass. The fact that he didn't and he felt he said nothing wrong shows how much times have passed him by. Although I don't agree with his opinion or stance, it doesn't surprise me that he stuck to his guns, (and opinion), however bigoted or dated they may be.

Personally, with Trudeau although the act itself was despicable, it was the fact that when asked how many times he wore blackface he couldn't recall. To me, that shows no respect for the racial issues at hand, he couldn't even use the "there was that one time in college" argument at that point. It's not the outlier, it's the norm for him.

The hilarious part of this trade is it totally screwed the 'Riders over. They got a 4th-round pick that could have (conditionally) upped to a 2nd-rounder if Collaros played significant time with the Argos. He didn't, but the Argos still come out ahead because they flipped him to us for a 3rd rounder (potential 1st-rounder if we were to re-sign him).

Even though he's a cocky, since this is from a credible source I gotta say I have a bit more respect for Mr. Mitchell.

Just wear gloves and you'll be just fine, like our lord and savior Bo Levi Mitchell.

1. Medlock, 4/4 on FG and hit a massive 52 yarder that swung some momentum back to WPG. 2. Streveler - had more rushing yards than Harris, played hurt and was still a beast. 3. Grant - had some big returns, and kept CAL's special teams on their toes. HH - Defense for being an nightmare for Bo "guess I'll eat some crow" Mitchell

I think this just shows how arrogant they are, anyone in their right mind would've run QB sneak to get a fresh set of downs.

Montreal had a brutal challenge that failed too... just sayin'

In Medlock we trust

Man, penalties galore, offense spinning its' wheels, and a big play given up on special teams... Were we too confident coming into this game, somehow?

That is intentional grounding and a safety.

Whatever I don't have time or money to go to the Grey Cup this year anyways... thanks for saving me money again Bombers!

I miss Matt Nichols.

He saw it was Begelton, so he knew it wouldn't count as a sack lol.

RUN THE BALL.

Disagree, this suggests they knew how to to begin with.

There is a time and a place for them for sure, but I think going for them 100% of the time is just playing with fire.

No, my stance was that teams shouldn't go for two on the basis that they are riskier. His stance (I think?) was that teams should go for two, on the basis that in poor-weather games, a one-point conversions have lower success, and thus why not gamble for two. As a rebuttal, I would add that in poor-weather games, points are at an even higher premium, so throwing them away on a two-point conversion attempt is less advisable, unless absolutely necessary.

Alright, well then agree to disagree. No point in pointlessly bantering.

Absolutely, conventional game theory would dictate that provided your 2-point conversion success rate is above 50%, you should always go for 2. However, mathematical game theory relies upon some principals that simply don't apply in the game of football. For example, law of large numbers, which would state that provided you have sufficient iterations, you'd want to go for 2 all the time (because your expected value is greater than going for 1), doesn't really work, because even in a high-scoring game, you'll get 7, maybe 8 touchdowns? In order for the overall gain from going for two all the time to be realized, you'd need way more iterations than that. Game theory fails to account for in-game scenarios. At the end of the day, it really depends on the coach's appetite for risk - a coach with a larger appetite for risk (such as Dickenson) is more willing to go for 2, whereas O'Shea (risk-adverse) won't go for 2 unless he absolutely has to.

When Calgary played us at home W21, they lost by chasing points. They went 1/2 on 2 point conversion attempts. They ended up losing that game by a single point. They went for two when up 14-10 (who knows why?), and when they were up 26-19 (which made a bit more sense, it was successful and extended their lead to 9 points).

You don't chase points just for the sake of chasing points. Hope EDM wins this game, then Gable runs all over HAM... bit of payback for them for trading him to EDM in 2017 and totally screwing us over when we hosted EDM in the Western Semi-Final...probably won't happen, but hey, it's the CFL.

Devaris Daniels in pre-game interview for the Esks mentioning he's made the Grey Cup every year he's played in the league. This year may be a disappointment for him.

Man, it's insane that facebook's business model works... having users voluntarily give up their personal information, then tailor ads to them and sell it back to them.