TBURGESS

3 Stars: Nichols - Found his deep ball. Threw it away when he needed to. Harris - Won't be taken down by the first guy and recovered a big fumble. Randle - Pick 6 for the win. HH: I'll go with Jeffcoat. Lots of pressure and a knockdown.

Grymes back is big for Edmonton's D.

Cuz we beat em by a TD. If they win by more than a TD, they get the series.

A win and we're still in the hunt for 1st overall. A loss, especially by more than a TD and we're in a fight for 2nd place.

Nope, not this dude.

I corrected someone who called LeFevour our #2 QB a couple of weeks ago, but don't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of the story you want to tell.

We have a top three starting QB, but if we lose Nichols, we're pretty much done. LeFevour's a glorified RB who can throw some. Great for 3rd downs but lousy as a starter. Who knows what we have in Davis? Edmonton has Reilly and Franklin. Likely the best situation of all the teams. BC's already lost their best QB and Ottawa are currently on their 3rd string QB, otherwise they'd both would obviously have better overall QB situations. With Masoli running Hamilton's team now, you gotta give them props for having a good QB situation, even tho they don't have a good team. The #1 guy can't get the job done, the #2 guy does. 20-20 hindsight says they should have made the change earlier. Glenn's outplayed Durant this year by a large margin and he's being paid way less too. I guess Jones is smarter than a bunch of you think he is. Bridge isn't anything special at this point in his career, but he can run their offense in a pinch. Better or worse than Davis? Who knows, cuz we haven't seen Davis do anything except throw a couple of passes in garbage time (The first one should have been a pick 6 BTW). Calgary has an injured BLM (The best QB in the league IMO) who is still doing enough to win and a big question mark after that. Toronto has a top four starting QB a 3rd down QB and a big question mark if Ray goes down. Pretty much the same place we are. Montreal has a lousy starting and backup QB.

A pick for a PR guy? Great.

Gotta take the Stamps based on their great D. We should get a home playoff game. Assuming we win it, we'll have to go to Calgary and beat them in their own park, which is next to impossible.

You mean Mburging.

LeFevour's supposedly our 3rd string. Davis #2. LeFevour's a glorified RB who can throw some, which is why he's our short yardage guy.

Popp's big problem was that he wanted to coach as well as be the GM and he's a poor to terrible coach.

The only way I see us losing the game is if we lose Nichols or Harris early on.

BC's not playing well and Edmonton is in a tail spin. I can see why folks are expecting the Riders to be 3rd. The Riders also have the tie breaker against BC and are a bunch of points ahead in the tie breaker with the Eks.

It has to be Lindley. They really don't have any other options except to get Burris back and he's said that's not happening.

Looks like we luck out and play the redblacks starting their 3rd string QB on a short week. Maybe we will get to see our 2nd string QB after all.

A non-fiction novel.

No there aren't enough quality NI QB's to go round. Right now, it would only affect Calgary and Regina. but it would make them worth more than the average import QB. It becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Is it better to pay your 2nd or 3rd string QB more to get an extra backup import and the possibility of a starting NI QB? I'd expect that several teams would go the NI 3rd string route and roll the dice that they'd never have to play.

An NI is an NI and that should include the QB. I don't see a down side to teams choosing to carry a 3rd string NI QB instead of an import. It would certainly be better for Canuck QB development and it would result in an extra backup import for those teams who choose an NI QB. Both are wins IMO.

FortHew = ForTheW

A few points: I'm not the only one who disagrees with the new contact-less practices even folks in the league like BC's O Line coach disagree ( http://3downnation.com/2017/09/13/b-c-lions-coach-laments-practice-rule-changes/ ). I'd bet that he's not alone although the rest aren't likely to come right out and say it. Mike's using the old "the pros know more than you, so you're wrong" argument, when I know he didn't agree with absolutely everything that some of our GM's and coaches have done in the past and had no problems disagreeing with those pros when he thought they were wrong. These forums are pretty much built on questioning what the pros think. Just because players like a change, doesn't automatically make it a good change and we don't even know that all the players like the change anyway. Riddle me this.... Why do players need to practice everything except hitting? Riddle me this 2... How can you evaluate mid-season replacements (especially OL and DL) who weren't with the team during training camp? (Hint: Up until the rule change you could have a padded practice or two if you needed them.)

This thread is about is it good or bad for the league. You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the league has a mistakenly high opinion of themselves. I fart in your general direction. What's the purpose of having a discussion at all if only one opinion is allowed?

I don't like the change. You need to practice the things that you do in games at least once a week. You don't have to practice hitting or tackling because you already know how to do it? It then follows that you don't have to practice route running or power turns or footwork or jamming or getting off the jam anything else for that matter because you already know how by the time you're a pro. This change will really hurt replacement players. No training camp means no hitting practices at all. Not sure how you evaluate a replacement DL or OL if you don't see how they can hit or absorb a hit. A guy who knows where to be and has great footwork may fail miserably when you add hitting to the mix. In season training for the OL and DL will just be a dance. Time will tell, but I bet the level of tackling goes down, and it's not at a high level now.

Quite frankly, it's the first time I've read the accidental part of the rule. It doesn't get called very often. (Google search on the term and CFL brings up a couple of hits from 2011) The receiver initiated the contact (inadvertently) and the DB got called for the penalty, which is consistent with the way the CFL has been calling PI for the last few years. Personally, I'd call it inadvertent tripping with equal position as the receiver tripped while trying to pull away. The DB didn't do anything wrong and couldn't have done anything to prevent the trip.

PENALTY: 1D to Team A, 10 yards in advance PLS (b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following shall apply: (i) Eligible receivers of both teams have an equal right to the ball and are entitled to the positions they occupy. (ii) If an official deems a pass uncatchable and Team B has committed pass interference, it shall be deemed pass interference on an uncatchable ball. (See Rule 6, Section 4, Article 9 (c).) (iii) Pass interference shall not be called if it occurs after the ball has been touched by an eligible receiver of either team. (iv) Inadvertent tripping by a player with equal position shall not be ruled as interference. (v) Tripping an opponent from behind shall be considered accidental pass interference. (vi) Screening (face guarding) of an opponent during an attempt to catch the ball is pass interference. I think we can all agree that it was inadvertent, so the question is do the players have equal position or not. Does equal side by side? Then it's a penalty although the tripping from behind doesn't have inadvertent in it. Does equal mean an equal chance at the ball? Then it's not a penalty.