Mike

You keep reiterating it like you're trying to prove a point. I don't think there's anyone that doesn't understand what you're saying. I think what you're failing to understand is that nobody cares about the semantics, this FRANCHISE has 10 Grey Cups. If the Bombers changed their name tomorrow to the Winnipeg Donkeys, the Donkeys franchise would be 10 time Grey Cup champions. I'm just saying that the actual name Blue Bombers was given to them after 1935. People are saying the HOF is 'lazy"... That they didn't do their research. I'm not proving a poiunt more than trying to correct a mistake. In reality, I really don't give a ****. One person said the HOF was lazy and it was well after you'd already tried to make your point several times, so that's not going to fly with me. You're just playing silly bugger. We all know what you're saying, we just don't care because it's pure semantics. Don't get me wrong, you're right. It just doesn't really matter.

Considering how often he is hurt, he should be a backup QB's wet dream. The backups in Wpg have had every opportunity to take the job away from him and failed, from Jyles to Brink to Elliott and now Goltz and Hall. Lack of reps has not been the problem with Buck here. The lack of practice reps has been though. When you consider how Pierce dominates reps throughout the week in preparation for a game .. only to get hurt .. then the backups are being thrown into the fire without adequate preparation .. how can you expect anyone to excel? As a backup, in that situation, you don't get a chance to develop chemistry with your receiver and you don't get the bulk of the practice reps as packages are implemented for that week - especially when Buck's availability is still in question and he's still sucking down reps in the off chance he can go. Not exactly a recipe for success. That's a coaching blunder. Every QB should be getting some reps with the starting unit in practice, even if it's only a 2 minute drill like MB is doing now. Getting a handful of reps at the end of practice isn't the same thing as getting the starter's reps. The starter is going to dominate reps in practice. He needs them to prepare and to get a grasp on what is being done offensively for that week. That's the nature of the beast. But Buck, being the band aid that he is, can't be relied upon to finish a game let alone be available from week to week. So all that prep time goes to waste. Even if you were to split reps 50 / 50 between Buck and a backup, you're not giving the starter the best chance for success. They NEED those reps and the problem is amplified if the backup is a young, inexperienced quarterback. So Mitchell, Collaros, Willey all get starter reps? How can they look so good in their starts without it? Dickenson, Milanovich and Cortez. Compared to Crowton. You figure it out.

Bert Marples got robbed that year, he deserved an all-star nod.

You keep reiterating it like you're trying to prove a point. I don't think there's anyone that doesn't understand what you're saying. I think what you're failing to understand is that nobody cares about the semantics, this FRANCHISE has 10 Grey Cups. If the Bombers changed their name tomorrow to the Winnipeg Donkeys, the Donkeys franchise would be 10 time Grey Cup champions.

I think if we kept Bishop over Pierce, we'd have been in a much better situation currently. Simply because Bishop's sucking is much more obvious than Pierce's. In a perfect world, we never would have signed Pierce and we would've recruited a different starting QB by now.

The Hall of Fame counts the wins by nicknames, not organization. And if you want to get really picky, there is no CFL HOF. It's the Canadian Football Hall of Fame. Jacquie, the Winnipegs are not the Bombers. They are the Winnipegs. They are listed as the GC winners in 1935. You can say whatever the hell you want. Like I said, call the CANADIAN FOOTBALL Hall of Fame & take it up with them. Quit correcting me. And sorry about the name of the HOF. I screwed up. So sorry. My bad. I should have known better. Jeez, whatever. My god, who pissed in your cheerios? Quit playing silly bugger just for the sake of it.

One of those things where the level of play didn't match the contract. He's still an okay player, just not at the price tag Hamilton had for him.

I don't even know how to react to this. We signed a guy who has played in the CFL before?!

You mean he was along for the ride. I was always very supportive of Buck when he was playing alright. I wanted him to succeed and while he was never an elite level QB for us, he at least did an okay job of managing things for us while he was in the lineup. Unfortunately, since the Banjo Bowl two years ago when he threw 5 picks and got lit up by Craig Butler, he's never been the same. His numbers since that game do not deserve my support. Buck has never been an on-field leader for us on a consistent basis and while he played at a higher level for us a few years ago, his mental and physical game has broken down so much that he's just no longer a viable option. The coaches spent all offseason designing a max protection offense to basically keep him healthy and in the game at the cost of production. It didn't work because it's not an effective scheme for his skillset or what's left of it. They took the reins off and let him play HIS game and it got him injured after one half of football. He's just not durable enough to play the style of football that gives him the best chance at being effective anymore. Keeping him safe comes at the cost of rendering him useless.

Serious question. Are you forgetting that Buck already had his opportunity with a proven CFL OC? He wasn't any good with PLP either.

Goltz lost to Calgary and in BC, games that you could quite likely expect to lose anyway. PIerce lost to Montreal and Hamilton, 2 teams that you should beat this year, Hall lost to Hamilton. So yeah, sticking with Pierce gets a LOT of blame for the season being done. He doesn't go into crap mode in Hamilton then the team still has a chance. He doesn't toss up that many ints in the opener against Montreal they might have started the season strong and not been as down as they are. Take your lips off PIerces ass and actually look at what's happened this season, and last as well, Pierce is not the player he used to be, not even close. Let's not forget that Pierce also lost games where our defense was playing at an elite level, whereas Hall and Goltz have been saddled with a marshmallow soft defense supporting them. Hell, even when Pierce had our special teams scoring points for him, he still lost the game.

Somehow I doubt that. He's sucked for the majority of three and a half years here, why is one week going to change your mind?

Judging by your posts and opinions you feel more like someone who hangs out at that other site . Anyways, thankfully we didn't go full circle back to Buck although I wouldn't be surprised if hes back in the lineup for LD. That's my biggest fear. I do NOT want to travel to Regina and have to sit through a game with that guy behind center.

back in Kelowna now.... I was absolutely liquored.

You know ... I'm all for alternate opinions. But I'm starting to get a bit annoyed with your defense of Buck. "Just because" is not a good enough reason. I'd love to actually see you explain your opinion and back it up with something substantial other than you think it's a bad move because you have a personal favorite based upon, well ... what kind of appears to be nothing. You keep saying "Buck is better" .. prove it?

Right choice. Good on you Tim Burke.

I would agree with you IF Buck was a better option than either Goltz or Hall. But he's not. Let's face it, with Buck around, the development of a young QB is not going to be ideal because at some point, he's going to be forced into duty in a situation he's unprepared for. I'd rather see a QB fail because of his own issues than fail because he was put in a less than stellar situation due to the fact that he's riding a QB merry-go-round with a glass veteran. I hate to dwell on Elliott and Brink but how did they perform in relief duty last year when they got ZERO first team reps during the practice week? Compare that to how they performed when they were given the resources and opportunity. Buck hasn't shown me anything that makes me think he's worth spending first team reps on in practice. He's not any more likely to win games than Hall or Goltz at this point and the potential upside that could come with their development (while we still have an opportunity to fight for a playoff spot) is valuable far beyond what miniscule (and personally, I don't think it's ANY) improvement Buck provides us with behind center.

Are you really trying to get me to believe that a coordinator signed a 3 year deal here? Come on now.

It still accomplishes nothing for the future of this franchise. Let's be honest here, one or two wins from Buck in the interim isn't going to do anything but give our boneheaded management a false sense of direction and hope leading into 2014.

Wasn't it you that was beating Hall down? lol

If I was running our team, I'm sure I'd have drunk dialed Jim Barker and tried to trade Tim Burke, Henoc Muamba and our next three draft picks for Ricky Ray by now.

That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional. Not true (unless the league or the PA has made changes in the CBA in that regard). in 2003, the club dressed Khari Jones and Brian Stallworth as their ONLY quarterbacks for a number of games while Pat Barnes was trying out with the Cleveland Browns. True, you got me on a minor technicality. You don't have to dress three quarterbacks according to the CBA but you can only dress 39 non-quarterbacks so if you sit Buck, you only dress 41 players. I guess technically, they could have put him on the 1-game IR and not put him in uniform, but if he's available that would be a silly option considering you can be too injured to play QB but be healthy enough to say ... take a knee to end a half or pin the ball on a convert or something.

That's not how it works. You have to dress three QBs. It's not optional.