Dragon37

MMA skill set-wise Holm was outclassed in her last two fights. Rousey isn't a great striker but she has adequate skills and has definitely got a good ground game. Tate can do striking and ground. Holly is a kick boxer and that's it. A good kick boxer and capable, obviously, of winning against anyone especially if that fighter plays to her skill set like Ronda did (and just like Aldo did in the McGregor fight). Rousey played the charging game because she was so far above the other fighters she faced, except Tate but Rousey just appears to be Tate's kryptonite. Holm though actually had a skill set that Rousey needed to respect but that could be overcome with the proper game plan. Instead they had her fight into Holm's skill set. If striking is not your strong point you never play a stand up game. Rousey paid the price in losing to someone she should never have lost to.

Rousey's coaching was terrible and she chased Holm around the ring. Holm is a striker first and foremost and Rousey's coaches should have known that they should have had Holm coming to her instead of charging. Holm has way too good a foot work set. If Rousey's coaches had told her to let Holm come to her Holm would not have won. Rousey was gassed long before the takedown and as such Holm had no problem. I disagree with your claim that Holm was headed to a unanimous decision. It was at least 2-2. That is moot though because Tate finished her. I have nothing against Holm but she is pretty one dimensional. IMHO Tate really gets no respect she is pretty well rounded and fought a very intelligent fight against Holm. I think she is a more deserving champion that Rousey and Holm. I was happy for her because she worked hard to get there and did it with very little fanfare. Her win also only helps to grow the Woman's Bantam division. I just can't say Connor has in any way a helpful ground game. Mendes is a much smaller guy and he was unable to really do much with Mendes on top. Connor may be able to do something when he is the one doing the taking down but he is really not good when he is on the bottom. If he sticks around and wants to challenge guy closer to walk around weight then he HAS TO improve there because as he goes up in weight he is going to lose the size advantage he holds at featherweight.

He still increased it. As did Harper. Both had plenty of time to do something about it and they failed that is on their heads not the Liberals.

And Filmon had to sell of assets to make his money. This is what any government will do to make money. We all say we don't like government but we still expect them to provide many things for us whether we are rich or poor. This means they have to do all sorts of things that are counterproductive.

And the Cons don't do the same? You really want to play that card? Both Liberals and Conservatives promise more they can deliver. That is politics. Especially when a party has not had a chance to look at the actual books it is really not logical to be promising anything.

Not disputing the provincial debt was increased by the NDP but why conservatives continue to believe that they are better money managers is rather ridiculous. On the Manitoba provincial level Filmon's government did alright but they also took too much from the system, decreased the income of government, and contributed to the huge infrastructure deficit (which every federal government for decades has also added to). At the federal level the only government that ran balanced budgets and made money was the Chrétien Liberals. Again though they drew too much out of the system and basically ensured that no following governments would be able to put back into health and infrastructure what was taken away. Cuts can always be made but governments need to be very careful when it come to health, environment, and infrastructure. Those three will ALWAYS need significant inputs because we always need them. Our lives, physically and financially, depend on them. The tendency of cservatives to cut cultural and other social programs or sports hurts on the financial returns as well. We all look for entertainment and providing some finances to these areas can grow the wealth (financial and cultural) can grow the desirability to live here. I work for a civic government and I have learned a whole new respect for those that work within one and a whole new perspective on just how our leaders let us down. While you and other right leaning folks may think that I am left leaning I certainly am not I am firmly rooted in the centre. Committing to right or left costs the public way too much money. It blinds people to the aspects of both sides that can help everyone or cloud the path to finding a solution. I also despise that, left or right, no elected government looks beyond four years. The quest for power NDP staying there supersedes doing anything that might work for the group in power. They stack senates with their cronies, they make laws that serve their purpose and not the public. And so forth... Anyway, enough of my soap boxing. I hope that your buddy Pallister lives up to his own hype but paint me extremely skeptical. People here know him well and he is not very well liked even by many staunch conservatives. That happens when you screw even your own kind over to get further.

While lack of pressure did play a role the secondary was still not good. They couldn't cover medium or crossing routes. Took tons of penalties on deep routes. Blaming the d-line for the shortcomings of the secondary is reaching though. It like blaming the o-line solely for the sacks.

The prosecution did a terrible job and you didn't need a liberal or judge to see the PMO handled the situation badly. I dislike Duffy but it was clear to me that him and others were bullied and thrown under the bus. The problems in the senate is the result of liberals and conservatives abusing this level of government for decades.

Lol. Anyone that thinks that the PCs are going to be any more efficient is deluding themselves. Can cuts be made? Sure. But whether you are left or right there is always expectation that government do more than they are capable of doing. History has shown that both the conservatives and NDP spend way beyond their means or cut so deeply that when they have to put money back in they haven't got enough. I don't expect the PCs to be able to make any inroads on any of their promises on the financial side of things. They will be spending money on other things. It is also unlikely you are going to see more frontline workers or relief for those that are overworked and under paid. That isn't how it ever works.if they are going to take out or merge you lose a few managers but mostly it is frontline people. What I expect is a merger and closure of any social and arts related department. Slashing of infrastructure, that is a go to for cuts when government cuts, rural health, transportation and all sorts of environmental projects (some of which will tie in with infrastructure). All of these will ensure future generations will be paying for our decisions.

Rousey fought Holm's game. If she had fought a Rousey game Holm wouldn't have gone to round two. Tate didn't charge like a sloppy bull and Holm wasn't rounded enough to outlast her. It doesn't matter at all who put who down the simple fact is McGregor has no ground game. McGregor was able to survive the smaller Mendes ground game but he wasn't going to outlast Diaz. McGregor is not Should not fight higher than lightweight he is just not big enough.

KW has been around for a while and was touted as a CIS guru. In all his time here and the last three years as THE main man we STILL have the weakest national roster in the league. BTW he is no longer a rookie. The long time problem since the Bauer days has been the failure of our GMs to treat the team in more than a piecemeal manner. KW has been no different. Only now that he knows his job is on the line has he tried to deal with more than two areas of concern. Though he has tried to deal with three areas this off season he hasn't dealt with other very weak areas such as our secondary. I have had my concerns about Walters from the get go. He has never lived up to his hype. He made some good moves the off season but it remains to be seen if it will pan out. Will the changes made compensate for the weaknesses that remain?

It wouldn't matter if I posted every day or once a year. Unless one doesn't say that KW and the other two stooges are the greatest you are going to pull your bullying tactics. KW talks a good game. Talk is cheap though.

Neither the PCs nor the NDP deserve to govern. Pallister was intentionally short on details because he knows that he couldn't promise what he did and get away with it because you can't. They promised cuts and income losing things and nothing that would actually bring in money. What I suspect will happen, like it happened under the conservatives federally, they will cut a ton of the lower wage jobs and leave the executive nice and fat. They will also create a pile more high paying government positions or cabinet positions. Of course they will privatize or contract out a bunch of stuff that will fatten wallets and take more money out of the hands of government. No doubt we would have been no better off with the NDP. It was a lose, lose night. I should have declined my vote.

I am fine with Connor not being on UFC 200. He lost to Diaz because he doesn't have the same power at 170 as he does at the lower classes. He could also not absorb the same damage he could at Feather. Holm was vastly outclassed in her last two fights. She has the standup game but all the other fighter had to do is not play Holm's game. Roused did and lost. Tate didn't and she eventually found a way to get Holm down and from there the fight was over. Conner was pretty much in the same boat. He can't do the ground game and Diaz was the first fighter that was able to get him there and keep him there. Mendes had him outclassed in their fight on the ground but Mendes was the smaller guy and couldn't makes Connor pay the way Diaz could. For all his hype McGregor was eventually going to pay for his lack of depth.

Total fluff piece and the KW fans are all over it. Walters/Chevy comparison is a joke. NHL and CFL are very different beasts. It can take years to build a strong team in the NHL. In the CFL it should take no more than two years to turn it around. Staying good takes years though. KW hasn't done anymore or less than anyone else since 2009 for the OL. He has signed a few decent players lost a starter or two and the net sum is the line is still the worst in the league. KW also fails to notice that the nastiest coaches have won the majority of the games in the last few years. Not many of them throw specific players under the bus but they do hold general areas publicly accountable. We have had nothing but nice, professional coaches since 2010 and exactly one playoff appearance in that time. While KW is building a block at time the rest of the league has already finished their block towers and and moved on to bigger and better times.

Brown has a very high opinion of himself and the (crappy) teams he served on but he is not wrong in his observations. While everyone here is being overly optimistic he is trying to introduce a tempered view. Of course, with the brunt of the main posters here being blue goggled cheerleaders anything but a ringing endorsement of this team is going to be seen as negative. The Bombers made some changes that look good on paper but recent past history should tell all fans that that paper isn't worth ****. If the Bombers want positive they should provide play that is positive. It's put up or pack up time this year.

What pleased me in the article is that he recognizes that not all the sacks were on the oline. Willy himself can shoulder some of the blame because he holds the ball far too long. What the author fails to do though is point out that a large part of the reason that the personnel wasn't up to snuff wasn't just the lack of skills but the lack of coaches being able to correct errors and bad behaviours.

I never expect domination but when you are sacrificing first round picks I would expect a bit more than just STs. I would have hoped that he would have progressed enough during the season that we would have seen him in regular action more. I do hope he pans out but if he doesn't the blame isn't on him it is on those who made the decision to draft him

Heh. I would like to point out that no matter what your job is on the field they are playing a sport that may result in an injury. An injury can result regardless of what you are doing. Part of football is being able to properly tackle and I would hope that every player I hire and put on the field to be able to tackle. Most kickers have played very little and as a result are not very good in the open field or knowing the right moves to successfully tackle another player. As such their efforts often do not pay off but I have yet to see, and would not expect to see, a kicker intentionally not attempt to tackle someone. Injury is always a risk to cripple your team by being worried about it to the point where you may handcuff the team in some strikes me as lame duck coaching.

I said a bit of a wash. That leaves room for improvement. I have underestimated players before so I try to leave some room for them to improve. I don't think that he was worth giving up a first round pick though. The only time I would give up a first rounder is if I was sure that what I was getting was a sure starter.

Actually yes it happens often. All but once last year did I not have to wait in excess of 20-30 minutes to fill my one bottle while two or three people spent five to ten minutes filling 8-10 bottles claiming it was for a group of people. It is frustrating and disrespectful.

I agree totally with this (along with some monitoring of the stations so you don't have some ass filling tons of bottles causing a huge back-up). However, it's not going to happen. They want you to spend money on their triple price bottled water. IMHO the only thing that will make the game day experience better is the on field product. The rest is easy to ignore dressing that is not going to improve or lessen my game day experience.

Don't you know by now that Mike knows everything and is always right? For the record, I wouldn't call Waggoner a "solid" ST player either. BTW regardless of the role of the player on the team all downfield players SHOULD be ready to tackle. As well, each player is responsible for a lane on the field. If the returner is in your lane he is in your responsibility. With STs the players that are downfield first and making the bulk of the tackles are usually your most solid players. Heck those guys often make the tackle even when they have been beaten initially. I would say Waggoner is maybe average, considering we chose to give up a top pick for him I would lean to he is a bit of a wash. If you are going to give up your first round pick you damn well better do a bit better than a "L5" STer.

Anyone that thought it was anything but a simple mistake is a fool. As far as I am concerned people here and the press made a big stink about nothing. Personally I think the person holding the winning ticket held part of the blame too because he knew he had the winning ticket at the game and didn't really press that point when first calling in. The transcription error made on the website was simply bad quality control by the team but that is not uncommon even for very public forums such as newspapers and books. The Winnipeg Free Press and especially the Sun make all sorts of error every day including spelling and fact errors.

What?