TBURGESS

The people who make their livelihood as coaches also thought Willy was a starting QB and Brohm was was ready to be the backup. Look at the backup QB's around the league. Who, other than the Riders, who have Bridge, have #2 QB's with a similar amount of experience as Davis? We rightly ridicule them for overvaluing their players and they aren't the kind of team we want to emulate. We want to be competing with the Stamps and the Eskimos and that means being able to win games if our starting QB goes down. Is Davis that guy? No one knows which is likely the most compelling reason to bring in the best available competition and let them fight it out for the #2 spot, rather than giving Davis the #2 money and the #2 spot without any experienced competition.

We start driving for the playoffs when we go to TC. Competition in TC between Davis and a more experienced QB would help both and then we'd have a couple of QB's who know the system. Bringing a vet in later doesn't give them a TC to learn the system. We'd get to pick the best vet QB we think is out there if we bring them in for TC. Later in the season we have to settle for whichever one(s) didn't get signed by another team. The only downside I see with bringing a vet backup QB in to compete for #2 is cost and that could be mitigated by cutting whichever one loses the #2 spot in TC. You still end up with another QB who knows most of your system that you can bring back if Nichols goes down for an extended period of time or if Davis turns out to be a bad choice for #2.

I think that having an untested Davis as our #2 QB is the biggest risk we are taking this year. I'm pretty confident in saying that we will need to start our #2 QB at least a couple of times this year. I'd be much more comfortable if our #2 guy had actually won a CFL game or at had thrown for more then 170 yards. Last year, Walters understood that we needed a vet backup when he said he wouldn't make the Willy trade without being able to bring a vet QB in. This year we can't afford a vet QB and the out of work backup QB's are expecting #1 QB money.

I'd say all are more experienced and Cato and Matthews are better than Dom. If any of them expect #1 QB money, they're dreaming. If we are going to sign any of them, it needs to be before TC so they can get the reps and learn the offense.

Thanks for the info. I can get to it now. Still no proof, but lots of info on Manziel, so it's worth a read. I get the plausible deniability angle, but they would say the same things if nothing happened too, so it's not proof of anything either way. For me Manziel's people saying that he hasn't worked out for any CFL teams means more than Jones and the Riders saying it didn't happen. I'll be interested to see if anything more than he said he said comes from this.

Do I have this right? Dunk puts out the story, then it's pulled back. Jones, the Riders and Manziel's people say it didn't happen. Folks around here still think it's likely that it happened, but Dunk can't prove it. If what's happening in politics has taught us anything in the last while, it's that 'Alternate Facts' stories are everywhere. Real or not, we should take these kind of stories with a few huge grains of salt. If the Riders suddenly trade for Manziel's rights then I'll be happy to believe it happened.

I really like this signing.

Probably not, but it's the best way to do OT IMO.

Give them 2 15 minute halves and let them play football. Ties give each team a single point in regular season. 2 more 15 minute halves in post season. Yup.... longer games once in a while, but no one could complain winning the coin flip won them the game.

I'd have zero problems giving up our 6th overall and obviously paying above 80K. His age doesn't worry me much as 3 years in NFL on the Panthers is probably worth more than 3 years in the CFL. As for the new 6th rounder wanting more than 80K. You bet they would, but they wouldn't have a lot of negotiation power as long as Montreal doesn't need them this year.

I doubt the CFLPA can do much. The offer, although really low IMO, is over the minimum contract. Foucault could sit out, but that doesn't pay the rent and then he's another year out of football and back in the same situation... His rights are still owned by Montreal. He could sign a 1 year deal to get out from under his Montreal commitment. He could demand a trade and I'm sure a lot of teams would want to make that trade, but there has to be something good to great in it for Montreal, like a first rounder in the draft. (Most likely situation IMO)

Lions sign Swaze Waters: http://www.bclions.com/2017/02/07/lions-add-kicker-swayze-waters/ Big signing for them.

Other than the preseason schedule, the week 1 bye and having to play Regina 4 times this year, I like the schedule much better than last year's. No really short weeks or 3 games in 2 weeks. Only 1 back to back. No waiting until the end of the year to play any team. The second bye comes at a good time for us. No playing all the bad teams in a row. I'm guessing that it's the Bombers who want the Thursday games, which are no problem for me cuz I'm not in Winnipeg anyway.

You give the edge to the player with almost no stats because he 'knows the system' and you discount the player who actually has stats over his 2 year CFL career. You choose to ignore both players careers up to this point because that comparison doesn't work in favor of Davis. Everyone in Bomberland should understand what happens when you have an inexperienced backup QB. I won't like the names of all the inexperienced QB's we've had over the last decade who 'might be the next one', 'knew the system', 'can't compare the stats', 'looked good in practice', 'had one good game' and failed miserably. That's the situation we are in right now.

Experience isn't ridiculous. Practice time isn't the same as playing time, especially at the #3 spot where you don't get many reps. Davis knows our system. Cato doesn't. That's a fact, but that doesn't help much, if at all, in comparing the two QB's. So you're saying that we can only compare two players on the same team with the same chances? That's crazy talk. Cato benefited from injuries and he didn't beat anyone out of camp. That's how he got the CFL experience that he has. Davis stayed at #3 and Walters said he wouldn't have made the Willy trade unless he could get an experienced #2 guy. That kinda says management didn't even see Davis as the #2 guy last year. Davis hasn't even had the 1 great game that Cato has. Other teams haven't had a chance to figure him out yet. College careers do matter when comparing the two, mostly untested, QB's. It comes back to playing time and success. Cato wins hands down. If Davis had more pro stats, then I wouldn't need to go back to college, but as we all know he doesn't. Look... I'm not suggesting that Cato will come in and take Nichols job away from him. I'm even saying that he's a good CFL QB yet. I'm saying he's better than Davis at this point of their careers. The only way anyone will know for sure is if we bring Cato in and they go head to head.

I find it funny that people call Carter and Cato idiots, but Stafford is just fine cuz we signed him. FTR...I don't excuse Cato any more than I excuse the other 2. He's the third stooge. Cato has way more experience and success in both college and in the CFL. In fact, the only reason to like Davis over Cato is that Davis is a Bomber. Cato isn't an old beat up car. He's younger than Davis with CFL starts and wins under his belt. Cato's college career was hugely more successful than Davis' with several MVP awards. Davis flunked out of Boston College, went to Fort Scott Community College, then for a couple of years in East Carolina University. No MVP's. LeFevour? 29. injury history, more Int's than TD's. Matthews? 25, more Int's than TD's. My 2nd choice behind Cato.

Cato - Games Played:22 Passing; 296 of 432 for 3570 Yards TD/INT: 17/11 Davis - Games Played:1 Passing; 16 of 25 for 169 Yards TD/INT: 0/0 It's not even close and it has nothing to do with Cato not being a Bomber.

Cato is better, younger and more experienced than Davis. He might be a good backup QB for us and we need to bring in a couple of QB's anyway. Maybe being cut will help him mature. Maybe the altercation(s) in practice were Stafford's and Carter's fault. Pickings are kind of slim. Would you rather have, Gale or DeMarco or O'Brien or LeFevour or Harris (Jacory) or Mathews?

The baseball analogy isn't any good unless you change it to if the team at the top of the inning scores 3 or under the game goes on, if they score 6 the game is over. That would make it closer to the NFL rules.

Real game as in the rules of the game stay the same. Kick off then play from the point you return it to and see if you can't score. If you don't score then you have to punt the ball back to the other team. If you manage a FG, the other team gets a chance to match or beat you. If you score a TD, then you win outright, which is the one problem that most folks seem to have with the NFL rules. Both sides getting a turn on offence wouldn't make it more like a real game. Having 2 15 minute halves would. CFL OT rules have no kick off or punts. You start at the 35 either score a FG or a TD then the other team takes over at the 35. You get no advantage for moving the ball better or further than the other team. It's basically a shoot out format, where you eliminate a lot of the games intricacies.

Baseball doesn't have two ways to score, a FG and a TD. If NE could only score a FG, the game would have continued. I like the NFL's 'play a real game of football in OT' over the CFL's start in FG range and see who can score a TD. I wouldn't mind each team getting a shot to play offense, but I don't see that as as big a problem as the NE haters around here do.

It's not the flip of the coin, it's letting NE score a TD on their first set of downs that cost Atlanta the game. Well that and some dumb play calling that resulted in a penalty and a sack that took them out of FG range. Still it was a Super Bowl for the ages and I thought it was over at the half.

IMO Glenn and Shologan were SMS casualties. Still a few more to come.

Talking about black and white. I never said it's GC or nothing. In fact, I said we had a successful team years before we finally won the cup in '84. You're trying to call 'doing things the way you think they should be done' success when the measurable's like the teams record or playoff wins tell a totally different story.

Context? 2-5 with the other team hanging 40+ points on you 3 times in a row isn't just going to be 'turned around'. The point is that DR was never a CFL HC again so there wasn't any other CFL team that thought he was the guy to turn their team around. Berry is the only coach who I think was prematurely fired. At least they did it in the off season when they had options for HC. Hiring an inexperienced HC was the problem. A mistake they'd repeat again and again. I'm simply don't call 1 and done after making the playoffs for the first time in 5 seasons successful. My 'bar' for success is higher than that.