TBURGESS

Rourke will make more on the PR in the NFL than coming back to the CFL next year.

BC won't be in SMS hell next year, because they can't pay Rourke more than the CBA rules for draft picks say they can. (It's in the rules in black and white, not up for yet another stupid argument.) Rourke will likely be in the NFL for at least the first half of the season anyway. None of VAJ, BLM or Faj-jj will be expensive starting QB's. They'll likely have a cheap 3rd stringer, so they won't be adding more than a couple of 100K to their QB spot. Bringing in a couple of draft picks instead of more expensive backups & dropping Lucky will take care of it.

Rourke looked bad in the first quarter all by himself. The rest of the game it was more the Bomber's D making him look bad & his receivers letting him down. 300 yards passing isn't bad, especially for a young QB starting his first playoff game in hostile territory. One of his 2 picks was a hail merry that we quite frankly should have just knocked down. He threw and ran for more yards than Collaros.

Rourke had a horrible first quarter. He had open guys and couldn't hit them. Some of the throws weren't even close. Missed the first 5 IIRC, that's 3 two and outs to start the game. Put BC in a bind right away. The Lions D took the roll out away from Collaros. That took away the one on ones that we've been so successful at all season & forced Collaros to run up the middle, where he eventually got hurt. Both teams got TD's from their special teams & both teams dropped a couple of picks. Only one team could run the ball. Brady O and the OL won the game for us.

Cold isn't really an advantage or disadvantage for the Bombers. Most players have played in the cold by the time they get to the pros. Everyone will have to play in the same conditions tomorrow. A slippery field is an advantage for the offence, because they know where they're going and the defence has to react. The last BC game shows what happens when one team is playing for next week and the other team is playing to send a message. I wouldn't put too much value on that game or the Rourke-less game. The game that shows the most is the first game we played against them, which made us the only team who beat BC with Rourke at QB. I expect us to try and take Rourke out early. That means pressure and leaving the DB's to cover man. For BC to beat our pressure, they'll need to throw quick, go to screen and draw, or use the 'Milt go deep' that Khari did and throw to a deep receiver. I expect to see them do all three things at different times to try to relieve the pressure. The last time we played them Rourke was short on two deep balls, where their receiver was behind our deep DB. Completing the deep balls is there only real hope of winning IMO. On D, I expect to see a lot of run blitzes on first down. They need to make us one dimensional to give themselves a chance and that means taking away the run, cuz they ain't going to be able to take the pass away unless they take Collaros outta the game & I don't see that happening. I'm hoping for a great game with the right team winning (Yah, I mean the Bombers).

I used to love playing in the cold. The bumps and bruises didn't hurt as much once they got frozen and the crappy fields brought everyone down to my level.

Looking at those numbers, BC would be better off focusing their passing attack on the 10-20 yard range instead of the -5 to 0 yard range.

My guess... Khari to Ottawa and Much-choka stays on in Montreal.

In Lucky's case, it's what happens when your foot gets stuck in the ground and a defender hits your leg. Coulda happened to anyone.

The west dominated the league this year, they should dominate the most outstanding awards too. I'm surprised that MOS got the MOC . I expected Campbell who took his team from missing the playoffs to second best in the league in one year, despite losing his starting phenom QB mid-season to get the nod. I guess the first 15 win season trumps the huge leap in the standings.

Counter counter point... IIRC it's the only time in the CFL that giving a non-winning coach a 3rd year has worked. PLAP thinks loser HC's should get more years, cuz that's exactly where he is right now.

You: I used to almost be someone, so you musta had to deal with someone who felt the same and are angry about it. Me: I used to be someone in my field, I don't go on about it online, cuz it no longer matters. You: Not understanding that both statements about Rourke are the same thing, then calling me out on my intellect. Me: That should be really embarrassing for you. You: Everyone believes me, we should take a poll. Me: So what? That doesn't turn your opinion into a fact, You: Personal slurs. Me: Yawn You: Finally admitting that you are giving opinions not facts. Me: Priceless!

Can't win with facts, go to personal attacks. The argument so far: 1) You: The facts show he's ahead of schedule. Me: Yup. You: Look at this that shows he's ahead of schedule. Me: Yup You: That means the Lions are a horrible organization who are forcing him back too soon. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. Repeat from 1 for days. You: You aren't reading what I'm saying. Me: I am, but I'm disagreeing with your conclusion. 2) You: Everyone believes me. Me: ALMOST everyone & so what? That doesn't turn your opinion into a fact, You: Personal slurs. Me: Yawn You: You twist everything. Me: Name one. You: I can't. You: You contradict yourself. Me: Name one. You: I can't. You: It's a fact, not conjecture. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. Repeat from 2 for days. You: I used to almost be someone. I'm smarter than you. You should agree with me based on those two things. Me: Imma gonna have to stop you right there. It doesn't meant that. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FTR: ""nobody said rourke isn't ahead of schedule" and then you also said its been decided since post 1 that he is ahead of schedule...so which is it????" - No one is saying he isn't ahead of schedule means that everyone agrees he is ahead of schedule. They aren't opposite statements. You'd know that if you really were a smart guy. You: No one believes it, then you give two examples of other folks who believe it. Add in TSN for the trifecta. What you mean to say is Morning Big Blue forum members agree with you. I'd agree with that. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rourke was rusty last night. He under threw 2 deep balls that he would have completed easily preinjury. He was making the right reads quickly as he did before the injury, took some big hits, & fumbled. Not a great outing, but not a horrible one either. He didn't re-injure his foot that we know of, so no harm no foul.

I was expecting vanilla all night long so I was surprised how deep we went into our playbook.

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It doesn't say a new contract, that renders the CBA moot, is an option. If it did, you'd be right.

Why do you insist on arguing the studies & timelines again & again & again & again...? It's been decided since post 1 that Rourke is ahead of schedule. You're arguing a point that has already been decided over and over again. No one is saying Rourke isn't ahead of schedule. No one is saying he's back to normal. No one is saying he's 100%. No one is saying he's pain free. No one is even saying he'll last the whole quarter, let alone the whole game. It's a matter of opinion, not fact, that it's "a desperate rush job and frankly stupid". The fact is he's going to play before most other players. The rest is your conjecture & your conjecture isn't fact no matter how much you believe it is. That's the crux of this stupid argument. You don't like your opinion being challenged. You believe it's fact and expect it to be treated that way otherwise it's days and days of angry text that ends up in name calling, cuz that's your intellectual level.

What's ambiguous? The CBA says what options are available to draft picks in year 3 in black and white. Folks who are saying the word OPTION makes it ambiguous are the one's muddying the waters. We don't have a precedent because we haven't had a draft pick any where near Rourke's level since Russ Jackson and the CBA's been changed a lot of times since those days.

Even when I thank you you want to know what my deal is? FTR: I was honestly thanking you for providing info I didn't get from Google. Some players never play again. Most do, even at the NFL level. You continue to bang on about the timetable, when it was agreed in the first posts that Rourke is way ahead of the average. Only 3 NFL players got back on the field faster. You're arguing that coming back early means: "1) Rourke is not human 2)B.C has a secret sports medicine program for faster healing or 3) they rolling the dice and being less than ethical 4) Rourke is just a dumb tool and signed a waiver to play...and likely ruining any NFL shot in the spring" I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. @SpeedFlex27 Your timeframe doesn't mesh with the average timeframe for NFL player to get back on the field. It's likely the difference between a 65 year old arthritic foot and a 24 year old pro athletes foot.

The CBA says exactly what the options are in the third year. Follow the salary grid & no more than 10% higher than year 2. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work. @SpeedFlex27 It's not ambiguous & I'm not muddying the waters. Rourke's out is the NFL, and I agree with GCn20, he'll get his shot next year. I doubt he comes back to the CFL next year and if/when he does, he'll get paid like the starting QB he is.

Thanks for the inside info on Rourke's surgery. Better than Google gave me.

Something says they have to exercise the option. It's called the CBA & says: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary. But wait, there's more, the CBA also says: All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid. According to the CBA, drafted players must follow the salary grid & sign a 2+1 contract & their 3rd year is not more than 10% more than the 2nd year. According to the fans on this site, no they don't, the club can tear up that contract and offer them something different in the third year cuz it's their option, even though it explicitly stated in the CBA what they have to do. According to Naylor?/TSN?/Twitter? (I can't remember where I heard/read it) BC asked the CFL for a exemption for Rourke's contract. They wouldn't need an exemption if they could just tear up the contract and offer a new one. I'm done arguing this one. Flame away folks. You know you want to.

Congrats! You've shown, using actual data, that Rourke is way ahead of schedule, something that no one was questioning in the first place. Of 28 players (11 offensive, 17 defensive) who suffered Lisfranc injuries between 2000 and 2010, two never returned to the NFL. The median time to return was 11.1 months from the time of injury, and three players returned in less than three months. If the bones are where they are supposed to be treatment in a non-walking cast for 6 weeks may be enough. Najee Harris suffered lisfranc injury during preseason and was ready to go 4 weeks later, and he's a RB. It's not an impossible timeline, but it's certainly not the norm. I'm no Dr., just a guy with Google, who doesn't pretend that I know more than the Dr's. From my googling: There are different levels of Linsfranc surgery. Ligaments can be stretched, partially or fully torn to removing cartilage, bone & fusing joint(s) in the foot. Google doesn't help with which level of surgery Rourke had, but they did call it a Linsfran sprain, which likely means it wasn't the worst case scenario. Maybe they opened him up and the bones were still where they were supposed to be. If you know more than google, please let me know. Only an ID10T would conclude that being ahead of schedule means that Rourke isn't human or that BC has a secret program for faster healing or that or the Dr's are being less than ethical or that Rourke is a dumb tool giving up his chance at the NFL in the spring or that the medical team is obviously skirting the healing issue. It most likely means that Rourke's not fully healed & is willing to play through the pain. I don't think anyone expects a 100% Rourke this year. I certainly don't. The question becomes what kind of harm can he do coming back before he's fully healed? He could re-injure and start recovery over again, he could re-injure and have a longer recovery time, or he might not re-injure it at all. The team and Rourke must think that the the chances of re-injuring it in a quarter of football this week is low enough to let him play. I hope they're right.

You're on the "it's OK to gamble with an old guy, but not a young guy" side. I disagree. A gamble is a gamble. Some work out. Some don't. Nope, not even close. Just cuz several people disagree with me doesn't mean they're right or I'm wrong.

I can be & have been swayed by facts.