Mark H.

The pot called the kettle black and threw in some righteous indignation for good measure.

As with any of the good teams: 1. Goaltending 1 a) Reliable D who move the puck up ice effectively

Sorry, but I'm with Wilder on this one. On his side the contract is legally binding, on the team's side it's a piece of toilet paper that can be flushed any time, if they no longer want / need his services. Other CFL players have been released so they could take a shot at the NFL, which does create a precedence, which by the way can become law if it happens often enough. Just ask yourselves which scenario is more common: giving players the opportunity for an NFL shot, or forcing them to abide by a contract that the other side can thrash at any time. As for the NFL not being allowed to speak to Wilder while he's under contract, methinks the CFL would need to get their own house in order before they tackle that issue. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen before free agency in the CFL - it's obvious that it does. This does not look good, and it is not a good way to encourage talented players to come to the CFL.

A.K.A give them a majority and let do what they want. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You may want to look at how he played when they weren’t starting a fake MLB - a lot of what happened this year was not on Loffler.

Yep, that’s my Colony

If they go with 3 Canadians on the OL, which it looks like they will, they won't necessarily need a Canadian starting at LB

Buff knows a guy, who knows a guy...

There are guys out here who would make sure he actually catches fish - but methinks Miller has things sorted

It was indeed -superb

Yes, but all such conversations (including re Westerman) boiled down to 'it has to work for the team and for the player.' So - make of that what you will

Don't hold your oxygen...

Doesn’t a funding bill require 60% support?

That should work as long as Poop & Nevis are never on the field at the same time

Yes? Who's the Canadian DT that rotates with him - taking the majority of the reps?

I always said he had good receivers and threw a lot of balls up for grabs, that’s still true of him. It’s also been true of Mike Reilly this past season. That doesn’t make either of them a bad QB as a whole.

I think Trestman adjusting the play & scheme of his offensive lines to fit with how Calvlillo and Ray play was the key to success.

Best case scenario

This would be okay, maybe about average. I would prefer: O - Harris, Chungh, Goosen, young NI OL, Feoli Gudino/Coates D - Westerman/Corney, Loffler Rotate: Thomas, Ekakatie They do have the option of keeping Bond and rotating Thomas / Ekakatie as the 7th NI It comes down to which option they feel is more valuable

Yes - we know we can’t have nice things

Starters at the bottom? Can you clarify that?

First, I hope that's not an actual thing. The current secondary cannot be without Chris Randle, that much is certain. The current OL would take a step down without Travis Bond, no question. But would they take a nose dive? So, if this truly is a choice between Bond and Randle, then I truly don't know what to say. Bond is an outstanding guard, but the Bombers have been drafting OL heavily. So, if the team still has to debate between the Bond and Randle, we got problems. To answer your question concisely: DB > LG but LT > DB

It would stand to reason that the team is interested in doing that - just hope they don’t do it prematurely I stand by the statement I made two months ago: the OL should be sacrificed last, not first.

So much depends upon - what hasn’t happened since 1990.

It was epic, particularly one TC post after which he avoided reporters.