TBURGESS
-
Posts
5,032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by TBURGESS
-
-
You can't even watch highlights or features without a log in.
Yes you can. It's in the Video section - highlights and features are there. Under the home section - Scoreboard - Headlines - Videos - Blogs - etc.
I just went to Video->CFL and I couldn't play any of the videos. I can't play the latest Videos either. (I'm on Telus)
-
TSN sucks. I'm already paying for their channel, so I'd expect to get the Videos too. They've locked all video out if you're not in Canada, so no watching the CFL on vacation. I get that it's their content, but once you pay for it, you should have access to it no matter how you choose to.
-
There is nothing wrong with the numbers. They just don't say what you think they do.
They're just numbers as I've said many times, no one is trying to say they say anything, you're just making assumptions like you always do.
The % of draft picks still in the CFL by team doesn't mean much. That's not an assumption. It's a fact. You're just showing that you don't know the meaning of the word assumption.
you're the only one trying to pretend that they do mean a lot here though.... all I see are the numbers (which are the facts here) being presented.
I'm not trying to pretend they mean a lot. Re-read the bolded part again, slowly.
-
There is nothing wrong with the numbers. They just don't say what you think they do.
They're just numbers as I've said many times, no one is trying to say they say anything, you're just making assumptions like you always do.
The % of draft picks still in the CFL by team doesn't mean much. That's not an assumption. It's a fact. You're just showing that you don't know the meaning of the word assumption.
-
There is nothing wrong with the numbers. They just don't say what you think they do.
-
Interesting info. Thanks Rids.
'In the CFL' isn't a very good indication of how good the draft pick is. What's the % of starters from each teams drafts? For example: Swiston, Pencer, Jade and Kito all show as in the CFL, but none are starters.
So a fifth rounder who doesn't become a starter but is a special teams stud, is a bad draft pick?
Nope. Pretty much any 5th rounder who becomes a stud in the CFL is a good draft pick.
All draft picks aren't equal and Rid's stats treat them as equal. Good starters are worth more than average starters, who are worth more than just starting because they are an NI or because teams need a 7th starter, who are worth more than a good backup, who are worth more than fringe players.
First rounders are expected to become starters. If they don't then they are bad picks, even if they stay on the team for a while.
There are draft picks who hang on for a few years just because the NI's on a specific team aren't very good. I wouldn't call them good draft picks they just got lucky t be drafted by the right team.
There are high draft picks who teams keep around mostly because they were drafted high. They take up a roster spot for a couple of years, but aren't good draft picks.
Being a starter means a lot. It means your one of the top 7 NI's on the team. These are the guys we really need to draft.
-
Interesting info. Thanks Rids.
'In the CFL' isn't a very good indication of how good the draft pick is. What's the % of starters from each teams drafts? For example: Swiston, Pencer, Jade and Kito all show as in the CFL, but none are starters.
-
If Ottawa takes Lavertu, I have no problem with us taking Goosen at #2 as he would become the best available center. Drafting the best guy for our biggest need isn't the same as going off the chart like Mack did.
-
If the Bombers want Glenn, it would make sense to trade something for him, but not the #2 overall pick or any NI starters.
If Glenn is released, he will have choices as to where he plays and Winnipeg won't be his top team. His contract will likely be more too.
-
Smith is a Mack type of pick, like Pencer. A guy who showed well in E Camp, but wasn't on anyones radar as a first rounder before that. O'Shea wants a starter with our first round pick. Trying to make Smith learn the Center spot and start in his rookie year when he hasn't played the center before is laughable. Smith's a project. I doubt he's a starter in year one, unless the team who picks him has no other choices.
-
-
Pretty early, but I'll take a shot.
Calgary lost Glenn, but not too much else. I expect them to be #1 in the West this year.
Regina lost the most in the offseason, but they were so far ahead of us that it won't really matter to us.
BC lost the second most in the offseason, but they are also way ahead of us. I see Regina and BC battling for 2nd and 3rd for the whole season.
Edmonton is at least a year ahead of us in the QB dept and they made changes to try and fix their O line, so I expect they will be ahead of us in offense. I like Chris Jones as a DC, but HC/DC could be a problem. Still, I see them ahead of us on defense, so I'll pick them as 4th.
We've got big ? at QB, O line, and OC at the very least, so I don't see us as an offensive team. I hate Etch as DC, but I expect we will look better on D for the first half of the season. We'll probably have the most changes of any CFL team this year not called the redblacks and that's only because they are starting from nothing. Our season will depend on how well we play Edmonton and Ottawa, rather than how well we play the other teams. I'm expecting about 6 wins, which won't get us into the playoffs.
The east is a bit harder IMHO.
Ray, assuming he stays healthy elevates Toronto to top spot.
Montreal's defence keeps them in the hunt. Their season will hinge on if Smith is the real deal or not. I think he is, so I'm picking them as #2.
Hamilton made it to the Grey Cup last year, but I don't see a repeat. Callaros was the best available young QB, but young guns rarely make a smooth transition to starter. They'll be in the hunt all year, but I'm guessing 3rd.
Burris will help, but he can't do it on his own so Ottawa will be last in the east, probably last in the league.
i'll mostly agree with this... except
West: CGY, SSK, BC, EDM and WPG
East: TO, HAM , MTL and OTT
I'll put HAM ahead of MTL. Both teams have a young guns at QBs (Smith/Marsh and Collaros/Lefevour). Montreal will be having a new Offense with Worman while it will be the same Austin Offense for HAM with Lefevour have 1 year playing it which is an advantage. As far as I recall, Collaros was not declared as starter yet.
I can certainly see why you think that way. How bout Ham and Mtl battling for #2 spot all season like BC and SKN?
-
Pretty early, but I'll take a shot.
Calgary lost Glenn, but not too much else. I expect them to be #1 in the West this year.
Regina lost the most in the offseason, but they were so far ahead of us that it won't really matter to us.
BC lost the second most in the offseason, but they are also way ahead of us. I see Regina and BC battling for 2nd and 3rd for the whole season.
Edmonton is at least a year ahead of us in the QB dept and they made changes to try and fix their O line, so I expect they will be ahead of us in offense. I like Chris Jones as a DC, but HC/DC could be a problem. Still, I see them ahead of us on defense, so I'll pick them as 4th.
We've got big ? at QB, O line, and OC at the very least, so I don't see us as an offensive team. I hate Etch as DC, but I expect we will look better on D for the first half of the season. We'll probably have the most changes of any CFL team this year not called the redblacks and that's only because they are starting from nothing. Our season will depend on how well we play Edmonton and Ottawa, rather than how well we play the other teams. I'm expecting about 6 wins, which won't get us into the playoffs.
The east is a bit harder IMHO.
Ray, assuming he stays healthy elevates Toronto to top spot.
Montreal's defence keeps them in the hunt. Their season will hinge on if Smith is the real deal or not. I think he is, so I'm picking them as #2.
Hamilton made it to the Grey Cup last year, but I don't see a repeat. Callaros was the best available young QB, but young guns rarely make a smooth transition to starter. They'll be in the hunt all year, but I'm guessing 3rd.
Burris will help, but he can't do it on his own so Ottawa will be last in the east, probably last in the league.
-
The good news is that Marve is playing well. Accuracy is one of the top indicators of a good QB IMHO. The bad news is that Willy wasn't the best QB at mini camp because he will be our starter. Willy has a whole TC to work things out and I expect him to be the starter at least for the first half of the season. If Marve is pushing Willy and showing more in practice and we aren't winning, then I don't see any reason he wouldn't get a chance to show it in a real game, but that's a lot of AND's and a long time from now.
-
It's your opinion that Miller handled it correctly.
No one else is fingering Miller because they either didn't talk to MIller directly (My best guess), or Miller told them it was off the record, or they don't have the guts to name Miller.
It's not blackmail. No one said 'Show me or else', your just making up stuff now.
You can't play schoolyard-flip-the-phrase on me on this one because I have not stated how Miller handled it one way or the other.
Where my opinion does comes in is related to how Friesen handled, then wrote his article.
Pretty evident to me he didn't get his way and so he took it out on Miller.
YourYou're the one in denial.Pretty evident that you've made up your mind and what you opinion is. No use in pretending you don't think that Miller was right and Friesen was wrong.
The article was going to be written no matter what Miller did. His actions guaranteed that it would not be a flattering article. You want to blame Friesen for that. If Miller chose a different route and allowed the press in, then there was at least a chance that the article wouldn't be so negative against the Bombers and a zero percent chance that the article would be negative towards Miller. That's why I think it was the wrong way to handle the situation. It annoys me when the Bombers get bad press that they could have avoided and this is one of those times.
It's not just Friesen who's following the story, nor is it just Friesen who wants to be let in to see the damage. It's not just the media who think they should be let in. The mayor and tons of comments in the press. I'd guess that a poll in the papers, not on the Bomber fan sites, would show that most people want to see what's going on and that most feel they have a right to know. The major difference between most folks and Friesen is that Friesen can write about it.
I don't usually argue with folks who hate Friesen because I don't particularly like his writing style, and I know he does it to get rise out of folks. That's one way to keep your job in a dying industry I guess. In this case however, the Friesen hate is misplaced.
I'm not in denial. I disagree with your opinion. Two very different things.
-
There is no way that Friesen could have written the story he did if Miller handled the situation correctly and let the media in to see the damage. Friesen's expected negativity would have had to go somewhere else like the folks who are actually at fault.
It is only your opinion and Friesen's spin that Miller handled it incorrectly.
Nobody else is fingering Miller..why is that?
It's a crock if you think that Miller should have given in to blackmail…."show me or else."
It's your opinion that Miller handled it correctly.
No one else is fingering Miller because they either didn't talk to MIller directly (My best guess), or Miller told them it was off the record, or they don't have the guts to name Miller.
It's not blackmail. No one said 'Show me or else', your just making up stuff now.
-
I'm not blaming Friesen for the story.
I'm blaming Friesen for his whiny entitled attitude that goes along with his version of this story.
As this post actually explains the topic of coversation and doesn't fit with the idea that tburgess has in his head expect it to be completely ignored. Never have I seen someone so consistently miss the entire point of why people say what they say.
I'm not missing the point. I disagree with the popular opinion that this is in any way Friesen's fault. You're not missing the points I'm making either, you're disagreeing with them. Sort of the point of discussion don't you think?
There is no way that Friesen could have written the story he did if Miller handled the situation correctly and let the media in to see the damage. Friesen's expected negativity would have had to go somewhere else like the folks who are actually at fault.
People read the stories think of the worse case scenario, like the Saddledome, when they hear about water damage. I'm sure it's no where near that bad, so pictures would help the situation rather than hamper it. Not likely to happen now, because that would be Miller giving in to the Media.
-
How have the Bombers shown disdain to the media since Miller, Walters et al have been in charge. They've held more press conferences since December than I think Mack had in his entire tenure as GM. They have been more accessible than previous regimes.
They did things right until this story. They also got good press until this story.
Which shows that Friesen will crap on the Bombers no matter how much goodwill they build with the media.
It actually shows that the media will give good press when the Bombers do the right thing and bad press when they don't, which is the way it's always been and always will be.
Folks around here want to blame Friesen every time he prints a negative story about the Bombers. It's far easier to blame him than it is to discuss the valid problems he brings up.
Our stadium is leaking... blame Friesen. Nope, blame the architects / builders instead.
Our management won't let the media in to report the damage? Blame Friesen. Nope, blame our management/media folks instead.
-
How have the Bombers shown disdain to the media since Miller, Walters et al have been in charge. They've held more press conferences since December than I think Mack had in his entire tenure as GM. They have been more accessible than previous regimes.
They did things right until this story. They also got good press until this story.
-
Then don't complain about negative articles because they are a byproduct of the way the Bombers treat the media. You can't have it both ways.
You've got it backwards. Friesen has always been the way he is, that's not a result of the way the team has treated the media just the way Friesen tries to stay relevant in a world that needs newspapers and self entitled columnists less and less. I complain because Friesen is **** at his job, if he doesn't want to do the job well then I am all in favour of the team not giving him anything. He's got to earn it.
Nope, you've got it backwards. When Taman was around it was a 'Love In' with the media because he fed them info and bent over backwards to help them out in every way he could. Since Kelly, The Bombers have treated the press with disdain. The result should be obvious to everyone. Try to put the media in their place and the articles they write will have a negative slant. It's the way the media has always worked and the way it will continue to work whether you like it or not. If they like you, they will show more respect and write more positive articles.
You, and others, gripe about every article Friesen writes. You don't like the guy so you treat him with disdain and spew negative comments. It's funny because you're actually upset with him for doing the same thing that you do. Is it because he has a bigger audience or that he gets paid?
- Nasty Nate and DR. CFL
-
2
-
I find it very unlikely Ted Laurent would sign here. I am interested in the situations of Alex Hall & Keron Williams though.
Why do you find it unlikely that Laurent would sign with us? We need an NI starter on defense to replace Muamba and we should have extra money to be able to offer him a better salary than BC or Montreal, although they would give him a better chance to be a winner. Edmonton isn't much better than we are so they would have to compete on price with us. At the very least, we should be able to push Laurents salary up.
-
The story was going to get written last night no matter what. By not letting reporters in to see the damage, Miller guaranteed that it was going to be aa negative story about the Bombers.
It's Paul Friesen, it was always going to be a negative story about the Bombers even if Wade Miller gave him a handy to go along with the tour. That's Friesens entire schtick, be as negative as possible. He's just a bad troll trying to get people worked up.
The idea is to channel Friesen's negativity towards the builders and/or architects where it belongs, instead of towards the Bombers.
The only thing the Bombers may have done wrong is hire the wrong architect or builder or both. When you're having something built, you leave it up to the professionals to handle how water is controlled. I doubt there is a single person on the Bombers staff who has the credentials to do it. You have to trust the professionals you hire to do their job. If they don't do it properly, you expect them to fix their mistakes. That's what the story should be right now. "Bombers get screwed by the architect/builders" or "Taxpayers get screwed by the architect/builders" or even "Who screwed up the new stadium?" complete with pictures of the destruction and discussion of who's fault it is.
Yeah cause Friesen is always fair and balanced right? Guy was going to crap on the Bombers regardless because that's what he always does. I approve of Miller telling him to piss off.
Of course you approve. You liked the way Kelly handled the media too.
It was one of the few things he did right. Joe Mack had the same attitude and I approved of that as well. The media wants to act like entitled brats I wouldn't give them anything either. The brand is strong they don't need the media to pump their tires they just have to put a winning product on the field.
Then don't complain about negative articles because they are a byproduct of the way the Bombers treat the media. You can't have it both ways.
-
The story was going to get written last night no matter what. By not letting reporters in to see the damage, Miller guaranteed that it was going to be aa negative story about the Bombers.
It's Paul Friesen, it was always going to be a negative story about the Bombers even if Wade Miller gave him a handy to go along with the tour. That's Friesens entire schtick, be as negative as possible. He's just a bad troll trying to get people worked up.
The idea is to channel Friesen's negativity towards the builders and/or architects where it belongs, instead of towards the Bombers.
The only thing the Bombers may have done wrong is hire the wrong architect or builder or both. When you're having something built, you leave it up to the professionals to handle how water is controlled. I doubt there is a single person on the Bombers staff who has the credentials to do it. You have to trust the professionals you hire to do their job. If they don't do it properly, you expect them to fix their mistakes. That's what the story should be right now. "Bombers get screwed by the architect/builders" or "Taxpayers get screwed by the architect/builders" or even "Who screwed up the new stadium?" complete with pictures of the destruction and discussion of who's fault it is.
Yeah cause Friesen is always fair and balanced right? Guy was going to crap on the Bombers regardless because that's what he always does. I approve of Miller telling him to piss off.
Of course you approve. You liked the way Kelly handled the media too.
-
The story was going to get written last night no matter what. By not letting reporters in to see the damage, Miller guaranteed that it was going to be aa negative story about the Bombers.
It's Paul Friesen, it was always going to be a negative story about the Bombers even if Wade Miller gave him a handy to go along with the tour. That's Friesens entire schtick, be as negative as possible. He's just a bad troll trying to get people worked up.
The idea is to channel Friesen's negativity towards the builders and/or architects where it belongs, instead of towards the Bombers.
The only thing the Bombers may have done wrong is hire the wrong architect or builder or both. When you're having something built, you leave it up to the professionals to handle how water is controlled. I doubt there is a single person on the Bombers staff who has the credentials to do it. You have to trust the professionals you hire to do their job. If they don't do it properly, you expect them to fix their mistakes. That's what the story should be right now. "Bombers get screwed by the architect/builders" or "Taxpayers get screwed by the architect/builders" or even "Who screwed up the new stadium?" complete with pictures of the destruction and discussion of who's fault it is.
Bomber Drafting Trends
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
LOL - Face it.... It's 17 trying to pick a fight, not me.