[Injuries / ratio]

18 hours ago, Atomic said:

If they spent all week saying Nichols was starting, and then start LeFevour, that is going to piss a lot of people off.  How many casuals wouldn't buy tickets if it was LeFevour at the helm?  Probably not a small number.  I understand it is gamesmanship, but this team is also battling to regain a lot of good will that has been lost due to Joe Mack, IGF problems, etc and struggling to maintain relevancy with the Jets being back.  You don't want to slap all your fans in the face now by lying to them.

Let's say the Bombers have known all along that Nichols won't be playing. But keep saying that he will be ready so that Edmonton mainly prepares for Nichols rather than Lefevour.

Should consideration for the fans trump the smokescreen strategy?

[Congratulations Blue Bombers]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Next weekend isa long weekend for many of us (Monday off)

$3million windfall or the team for getting a home playoff game. That’s a big deal. 

I believe the last time the Bombers hosted a playoff game the break-even was around 25,000.

Not 100% sure, but I believe the Bombers need to pay league fees, stadium costs, visiting team's costs etc., etc..

A sell-out would mean a tidy profit, but no where near 3 million.

[Odds and Sods - Montreal Als at Blue Bombers]

6 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

I believe that was the game where Poplawski kicked the ball left-footed, because he was soccer savvy, and it was totally unexpected. We recovered and went on to win that game.

Yes.

In many ways a very similar ending. Bombers down by 12. Scored twice in the last 62 seconds. Onside kick leads to the second score.

Weird thing is....a story about that game was written by Mike Sawatsky only a week ago (sorry pay wall here):

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/the-miracle-at-lansdowne-park-435939803.html

 

[Changes to the Stadium and Concessions]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

So what idiot bought a board with such a ridiculous aspect ratio?

I expect it was always meant to be a multi-functional board.

It is probably being used as intended.

This is not uncommon. Many stadiums have installed boards that are wider than 16:9 and use the remaining space for information other than replays.

[Changes to the Stadium and Concessions]

On 6/19/2017 at 2:55 PM, Bomber_fanaddict said:

Agree with this. Not sure if it is that easy to do but would be the best of both worlds as you typically are watching the game live and not the screen. But during replays full screen makes sense. Bigg Jay can you please bring this up at the next executive meeting with the club?

I think it is easy to do. It is just a matter of zooming in and showing the resulting cropped view.

However that view would not always make sense. Important information could be lost due to the cropping.

The problem is that the feed is delivered at a 16:9 aspect ratio. The full board at IGF is around 37:9.

Anyone can try to imagine this. On a tv, block off 25% of the screen from the top down and 25% from the bottom up. Then watch some replays. That is the resulting view if expanded to the 37:9 ratio.

 

[West semi final time conflict]

I think this could potentially kill a good portion of the walk-up crowd for the eastern semi final.

The best place to catch the most action from both games will be in front of the tv.

[2016 Transportation Plan]

48 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Is the golf course being torn out & developed? All that room for parking but the U of M won't allow.

Regardless of what the big vision is for this land, it would be great to see the walking/biking path developed sooner than later. And not just for Bomber games, this would be a highly used pathway year round.

Navigating through that pitch black golf course after a night game can be quite an adventure....definitely a few safety issues.

 

 

 

[Around The League Off Season Discussion]

9 hours ago, Jacquie said:

And it that's the case then it's no where close to making SJS the second highest paid draft pick ever.

If the contract is, for example; 82k this year, 90k next year and then 130k in year three it could be the second highest contract ever.

No risk to the Riders, by year three they can dump him if he does not develop.

[Around The League Off Season Discussion]

4 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Riders offer is 82k/yr for 3 years. 20k signing bonus in year one

The only way that makes sense, and jive with what Murphy is saying, is if the 20k is include in the 82k/yr. In other words a 62k base and 20k signing bonus.

[Around The League Off Season Discussion]

1 hour ago, Jacquie said:

That doesn't make sense even when ignoring the hyperbole. If they offered him that type of money then it would go against everything they've said about market correction, etc. and would be well above what last year's picks got.

To me, there are two ways this makes sense.

1. The riders are not offering much in the way of incentives or a signing bonus.

2. The contract is back loaded.

It appears the two sides are reasonably close when it comes to base salary. But for JSJ to ask to be traded, they must be miles apart in first year dollars. At least four top picks last year were in the $100,000 range with bonus and/or incentives.

I think this what Murphy means by a market correction. He does not want to pay a rookie at "near $90,000 to $100,000. So I believe the Riders are offering, all in, around $80,000. JSJ wants that extra $20,000.

 

[Who's idea was it to go to the navy blue colour in the first place?]

Someday, maybe we will see a mix of royal, navy and gold. I think that could have some great possibilities. Maybe in the next set of signature jerseys?

[Who's idea was it to go to the navy blue colour in the first place?]

On 17/05/2016 at 6:21 PM, iso_55 said:

I think #3 is the right answer. As I recall this was Cal Murphy's idea going into his final season as GM with the Bombers. No one wanted or were calling for the change to navy blue with a different logo. I think it was The Big Lie. Someone prove me wrong...

 

On 17/05/2016 at 6:25 PM, iso_55 said:

1961. The Bombers had the lightning bolt in the Grey Cup that year. In 1962 they had the first rendition of the iconic letter W. it was white on a blue helmet. To me, the blue helmet didn't quite look navy blue. Just a darker rendition of the Royal Blue.

I recall that the navy blue change was favoured by most. It was happening all over North America with many teams going darker shades and often mixing in a black alternate. Now we are seeing many teams transitioning back to "retro".  At the time, the eagerness to go darker is comparable to the clamour to go to royal now.

There is a display case in the Bomber store of all the helmets through the years. The lightning bolt helmet from the 1960's is a very deep navy and so is its predecessor.

[New Mosaic Stadium Coming Along]

4 hours ago, BlueGoldBozo said:

Much better seating plan than ours way way less end zone seats. 

When viewed from the other end, would it maybe have more end zone seats than IGF?

[New Mosaic Stadium Coming Along]

If the build went according to plan, the field is sunk into the ground deeper than IGF.  Access is at ground level, instead of the stairs and ramps at IGF.

It is a complete bowl configuration, the end zone that can't be seen from the construction cam contains seating. Also a tiered party deck...which will be a popular spot no doubt....and something IGF could desperately use in the vicinity of the Rum Hut.