deepsixemtoboyd

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 ****

Okay.. come on this f’in D… Make one stop.

I had so hoped the D had turned the corner based on last week.

Needed a few more 7’s...

All that extra time of possession...

I can’t agree with this. I feel the game is improved by limiting the challenges. There were a lot of fishing expeditions going on. In terms of your point that there is now a significant amount of pressure on which play you’re going to use that challenge on, you are 100% correct. But by that standard, why wouldn’t MOS uses his challenge on a play that would’ve moved the ball down to the 1 yard line with a fresh set of downs? He has also made several mystifying challenges in previous games that would give us a first down at her own 35 yard line in 2nd quarter. It’s these type of decisions that leave me questioning our head coach.

Those two series where we were struggling to protect the football now seem like an aberration… Whoa… Big balls play by Nichols right there.

Yes, on that I believe you are correct. I was merely commenting on how they are supposed to call the challenge. That said, the CFL officiating has been wildly inconsistent on this issue and have never gone by their own rules: namely, the standard for a overruling of the call on the field is irrefutable, definitive evidence.

Well, penalty aided or not, that was a big-time response by the Winnipeg offense.

Technically speaking, they may have got it right; there needs to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. I am not sure we 100% met that standard. What bugs me, however, is on the earlier challenge from Campbell where they did over rule, there was also not definitive evidence.

The bombers just got jobbed on the challenge; however, O’Shea missed his chance for a most impactful challenge earlier. Bad coaching.

MOS should have challenged on the pass to Dressler in the end zone. Defender was screening; absolutely did not look for the ball. It would’ve been a high percentage, very smart challenge.

I am neither angry nor disgusted. Rather, I am amused. Your sentiments are sweet and delusional… And, yes, you are absolutely entitled to them. Enjoy!

Yes, indeed, them's the key words: "he needs to do it again next week." Yes, Nichols had a controlled, pretty mistake-free game last night at home against the team with the worst record in the CFL. That's good. It's certainly better than the alternative: crapping the bed and losing to the worst team at home. That said, let's hold off on the heavy kudos for now. Judgment is reserved about his rehabilitation until he can do it against a plus .500 club from the West. After all, that's the acid test, no? Those are the teams we will need to beat if we hope to take home the chalice.

It's helpful whenever anyone mentions Mike Kelly, because that almost makes me grateful for MOS.

This is a beautiful mixed metaphor. Thank you!

There's such a thing as appropriately confident and self-assured, and then there's just flat-out delusional. Our coach is a nice guy who is the latter. While I don't share J5V's vociferousness about him (that I felt for Mike Kelly or even the hapless Burke), I certainly find it curious how many folks are seemingly eager to defend this paragon of mediocrity. I mean, **** guys, the man is 3 games below .500 over a 5 year career with not a single playoff victory under his belt. Is that good enough for y'all?

That was good. Thanks.