deepsixemtoboyd

I can’t disagree with anything you said here. The only caveat I would offer to the critique of our GM is the fact that it appears that Mike O’Shea is extremely resistant to bringing in new people partway through the year. It is part of his very dysfunctional “loyal to a fault” quality. Actually, that quality is more than dysfunctional. It proves fatal every year and manifested again on Sunday in his refusal to replace a quarterback (even for 2 or 3 series) who just did not have it.

Rider fans... just beautiful. Just wow. You come on here chirping… Although I am disappointed by today, the pain is so sweetly muted by the fact that we played one week longer than you. By the fact that your first ever game at Mosaic Stadium will go down as a loss to the blue bombers. And your first ever playoff game in Mosaic Stadium will also go down as a loss to the blue bombers. Nothing that happens from this point on will ever change those facts. Isn’t that just lovely? Now, I will enjoy the next six months following our national hockey league team… While you will…huh...Come to think of it, what the hell will you do?

I guess it comes down to your assertion that this was "a call they're clearly not going to reverse." Not quite sure how you can be so certain of that. Esp since a few others have now weighed in on other angles by which the call could be considered questionable. For his part, in the post game presser, MOS said "I'm not sure if that ball was really catch-able or even if they take that into account..." With all due respect, they DO take that into account and, actually, it is the head coach's job to know that they do. I maintain that if coach had said he was challenging on the basis that the ball was not catchable then it is not a no brainer that they wouldn't reverse it upon review (since, I'd hope, upon review they'd see that it actually was not catchable). As far as saving the challenge for a more important moment later in the last drive (ala Booch), if you are not prepared to use your challenge to try to maintain an 11 point cushion with less than 3 min left in the game, your judgement may be off as to what constitutes a important moment. The fact is - as it turns out - there was not another "riper" challenge situation that arose in the final 3 min. By the "keep waiting till the last drive" logic, you'd often wait for something better that - in reality - often would not emerge, only to discover that time had ran out and you ended up not using it at all...hey, wait a minute...that's exactly what happened. In sum: I maintain it was not a call they would never reverse, ergo it was worth challenging at that stage in the game given the critical importance of the call. The reason I even raise it is it makes me a bit nervous about coach's judgment in critical situations. Granted, he's had some much bigger brain cramps in the past. This was definitely minor compared to the infamous 62 yard field goal instead of gambling on 3rd and 4. But maybe we should stick with what we can agree on? Like...it's pretty sweet to beat the riders in both their first ever game and playoff game at Mosaic.

Good point, but you didn’t address the fact that the throw was beyond receiver’s reach anyway. The reason he embellished was because he knew we did not have a shot at making the catch. I believe the referee has discretion to not a call a PI infraction if he judges that the ball was not catchable. Or maybe it’s a infraction but just a 10 yarder and a first down.

A huge congrats to you, MOS, for winning a playoff game. Awesome. Couple questions though. Why not use your challenge on the ticky-tack interference call in the end zone with about 2 min left? You know, the one that gifts the otherwise totally hapless sliders with their only TD of the night. Couldn't you have made the following points to the refs: a) receiver initiates contact b) receiver then clearly embellishes effect of contact and/or c) the ball was not catch-able. More to the point, what is the risk in using your challenge flag at that point? did you think there would be a better or more impactful candidate in the final 2 min? To not challenge at that juncture was basically to gift them the TD. A second good challenge candidate would have been the lateral that was called an incomplete pass. I understand wanting to avoid wasting your challenge, but to not use your challenge at all is a waste when there are high-reward candidates in the mix. Still. Congrats on the win. Must feel helluva good. Finally, the only thing better than winning a playoff game? Doing it at Mosaic. In their first ever playoff game there. To send rider p** home for 6 more months of nothingness.

Geez, I guess you and I don’t agree… Imagine that? Two people having a different take on something as subjective as what constitutes funny...weird. Anyway, I could agree with you, but then we would just both be wrong. 🤓

Yeah...k...Those are definitely ****** baggy, egomaniacal quotes. Still, if we’re going into history, Milt always liked to talk about himself in the third person. As in, “Milt Stegall never shows up late…” Or “Milt Stegall isn’t thinking about the touchdown record…” My experience is that people who like to talk about themselves in the third person are also inevitably egomaniac, ****** bags. Anyway, you’ve now explained why you do not like Davis Sanchez. Thanks. At the end of the day, I think I still prefer him as a commentator to Milt because of the way the two men carry themselves in the present and - more specifically- what each brings to the table as a TSN commentator, both in style and substance.

Re: Sanchez being a dirty player 10+ yrs ago, I don’t know… Maybe you’re right about that. I’m just watching two human beings interacting in the here and now, both over the age of 40, and one’s acting quite a bit more immature than the other. And it ain’t Davis.

😀 Still waiting...

Wow. Strong feelings. What exactly does Sanchez do to make you hate him that much? It almost sounds personal. It’s funny… I actually feel the exact opposite of you. I think Milt acts like a total **** on the panel. Helluva receiver, for sure. But I really don’t care for him as a commentator. He talks incessantly and interrupts other people continuously. I mean, Hank gives his opinion on who the Bombers might prefer to face in the semi. Then Milt gets to give his opinion. Then when it’s Davis’ turn, Milt rudely over talks him. Why does Milt get a free pass to be a dink? He’s also not nearly as funny or clever as he thinks. It was like that when he was a player too. I just don’t care for the arrogance. Surprised, actually, that Davis didn’t punch him in the mouth. He deserves it.

Re: the disputed call at the goal line: in real time it looked like he didn't survive contact, so I understand the original call. In ultra-slow-mo it looked like: a) the ball contacts receiver's hands and he has not yet breached the plane of the goal line b) as he breaches the plane he is still moving the ball (i.e. ball is not yet fully secured and in control) c) the defender now makes contact with the receiver, pushing him back out of the end zone (i.e. still before receiver has fully brought ball under control) d) as he goes to the ground, he now appears to secure control BUT...he is no longer in the score area e) the defender then rips the ball out a split second after the receiver is on the ground. So, to sum up: the Calgary receiver never had full control of the ball while in the score zone PLUS there was not definitive, conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the field (which is the threshold required in order to overrule). Conclusion: that was not a touchdown, correct call made, both initially and in the video replay.

Just...YES!

I can’t disagree with the assertion that they played well “in the middle of the game.” At the same time, I must point out that it is sort of an amusing assertion. By your own reckoning, there are three parts to the game: a beginning, middle, and end. The defence played poorly in two of these parts and when they needed to make a stop - twice - at the end of regulation, absolutely couldn’t. Even the stop in OT was a bit lucky. If not for the ref buying our guy’s embellishment, that 15 yarder is not assessed against Ottawa. It very much looked like they were going into score again before bighill makes his big play. don’t get me wrong. I am thrilled that they won. I feel happy this morning. I just don’t think you can get too excited about that defensive performance. last week? For sure, but not last night.

Man, do we ever like to make things hard on ourselves...

Holy ****