TBURGESS

Total 20-20 Hindsight. If Reilly was shitting the bed right now you wouldn't even be talking about this. Nobody would be. In fact, up until a few weeks ago Reilly was shitting the bed. And I still don't see him getting through this season alive. There is no way he can keep getting smoked like that game in and game out and surviving. Also - if the Bombers had tried for Reilly and failed, by giving up a first round draft pick and cutting QB's, you'd be the first one hollering about how stupid they were. Yeah it was a calculated risk, and a risk that would have resulted in failure. Reilly was going to Edmonton. You obviously don't understand what 20-20 hindsight means. I am saying the same thing now as I did then. That's not 20-20 hindsight. It's reading the situation properly AT THE TIME. If Reilly didn't play well, we would be talking about it, because you would be telling folks that they needed to 'eat crow', kind of like the two or three games Jade actually played well. If the Bombers had given up a 1st or 2nd rounder and not signed Reilly, I'd be saying they made a huge mistake, because.... now try and follow along here... They would have made a huge mistake! As soon as Edmonton made the trade, Reilly was going to Edmonton. Before that the situation wasn't anywhere near as clear, although I'll give you that Mack probably wouldn't have outbid Edmonton anyway because that's not what Mack ever did, but that was Mack's choice.

The first round pick never guaranteed they would get Reilly though! Why in gods name do some of you pretend like it was as simple as trade the pick and sign Reilly? The guy was obviously more interested in going to Edmonton than anywhere else to start with. Oh no. Here comes Round 43967345 with TBurg in the "We could have had Reilly" never-ending argument. Hindsight is always 20-20. Reilly is looking better and better. How he is still upright is what is really impressing me, given the pounding that guy has taken this year. Tate, Buck, Nichols all would have been in the hospital right now if they had endured that kind of punishment. I nor anyone else on this board are really privy to what really went on in the pre-season with Reilly and the Eskimos, and what Mack tried to do. If we had cut all of our QB's and given Reilly the number one role going into TC, and tampered and broke the rules by negotiating with him before the free agent deadline, could we have gotten Reilly? At the stage he was at, with two starts under his belt, was he worth doing it for? Now I'd say "yes". At the time, it was a huge gamble. So of course, "NOW" we can say that the Bombers should have pulled out all of the stops, traded picks, cut people, and offered boatloads of money to get Reilly here. And even after all of that, he probably most likely wouldn't have come. But anyone who says that it was a no-brainer decision that should have been done is just flat-out lying. Hindsight, my Aunt Fanny. I said it at the time and I stick with it now. We should have gone after Reilly. If we couldn't get him, we should have settled for Glenn. We shouldn't have kept Buck. We should have kept Elliott. BTW: It was never a guarantee. It was a calculated risk. No one said it was a no-brainer.

It sounds to me that you like to hide behind your handle. Personally, I wouldn't type anything different if I had a handle instead of using my real name. OTOH, being called by your real name when you haven't provided it is kinda skanky of the posters who do it. But do you know any coaches, players or managers well in the CFL? I do & it can be tough sometimes as I am a fan first. I have my loyalties, ha ha. If you don't know anyone then you can say whatever you like. But when people know you, well.... Thing is, I could change my handle but I don't want to. I just have to watch what I say. And yeah, doing that is skanky. I don't know the coaches, players or managers on a personal level. I could say that it wouldn't change anything if I did, but I don't know for sure if that's true. I'm sure, however that folks who know me would also know my handle. Mike.... Call me Terry if you want to. No problem for me as my handle and name are the same.

It sounds to me that you like to hide behind your handle. Personally, I wouldn't type anything different if I had a handle instead of using my real name. OTOH, being called by your real name when you haven't provided it is kinda skanky of the posters who do it.

Mr. Crowton, please take the window seat to the left. Mr. Burke you're on deck.

The numbers and names are a little hard to read, but those are some nice uniforms. If I were a Lions fan, I'd have to get me one of those slate grey jerseys.

I wouldn't assume that Henroc is going to be under contract. He might get an NFL look as a special teams player, which would pay way more than the CFL. If not, I expect he will want to go to free agency to get the most bucks or at least go to a competitive team. Our best shot at keeping him is to become competitive then 'overpay' him in Free Agency. I agree with protecting our O line first. I'd protect both Kohlert and Watson. The rest aren't that big a deal IMHO.

Kito hasn't been in the NI receiver discussion all year. Last night he dropped a sure TD and then went out and got a blocking penalty on the next special teams play. Other than that, he was invisible.

You're right. It could cause divisions in the team, but those would quickly go away if the defence started playing like it did against BC. We have consistently promoted people into jobs they aren't any good at. A few demotions to the jobs do best would help the team and coaches. Yah, we would be overpaying them for the jobs they are doing, but it's cheaper than bringing in new coaches and paying them too.

At least on East Hastings, you don't become a 'Homeless-sicle' in the winter.

Kohlert is our best NI receiver right now. Watson is our best NI receiver when healthy. Both of them should be protected. If we have a third NI receiver spot left then we can protect Jade, assuming he is re-signed before the end of the year.

Coaching is obviously a problem. If I were the GM I'd drop Crowton today and 'promote' MB to OC. I'd leave Burke at HC but tell him his responsibility is now limited to bringing the defence back to life and that ALL offensive decisions would be MB's (IMHO he has already been told that). I'd tell Creehan that he is DC in name only, but we will keep him on for the rest of the year. Talent is another issue. Who are our 'core guys' that we can build our team around going forward? Do we have any players who are 'untouchable' for a trade? Is there anyone on this team you wouldn't trade for a decent QB? Our best player last night was Edwards and it's the first time he has earned his paycheck this year. When I went through the exercise of who I would want to protect in the upcoming draft, I ran out of good players before I ran out of spots to protect. I think we need to make a couple of player changes a week. Keep the ones that work out and dump the ones who don't. Hopefully we can work our way into being competitive by the end of the year so we have some hope in the off season.

Obviously the first time I've seen Hall play. Like most rookie's there was lots of good and lots of bad, but based on very limited looks, I'd go Hall, Goltz, NewGuyWithCFLExperienceWhoIsntBuck

To be fair, EVERY QB we had struggled under those offensive schemes. Elliott did the best with the chicken 'salad' that our offensive systems have been.

I really like the new theme. Thanks.

I'm not surprised or upset. Garrett was good for a stretch about two years ago. Not needed anymore.

My first choice would be Bo Mitchell, but I doubt Calgary will be willing to trade him and I suspect they will protect him in the Ottawa draft. We would have to give up even more than Calgary wanted in the offseason to get Glenn now that he is the starting QB in Calgary. He is the only 'ready right now' QB though. Collaros or Willy as competition for Goltz isn't a bad idea but they are all similar points in their development. I'd take either over Buck right now, but then again I'd take Brink, who is the only available QB who knows our system over Buck, and I'm not a Brink fan. I don't think Tate or Buck 2.0 as I think of him is a good choice. We need someone who the fans can get behind and another oft injured QB won't cut it.

The KABOOM came earlier than I was expecting.

He should be talking with the coaches. I'd have been more surprised if he answered it.

Horrible public speaker, but I like the appointment.

I'd rather see him as CEO than GM.

I don't disagree that Burke loves Buck for some reason that I can't see or that there is something seriously wrong in Bomberville. I don't see the Mack and Buck situations being related due to the timing of both 'announcements'.

Montreal looked worse and more disorganized last night than the Bombers do. The fans should be on their case.

When this first broke I thought that the leak must have been orchestrated because no professional BOD would let a leak like that out. As more info has come out, I've changed my mind. My mistake was thinking that our BOD was a professional organization. The board member(s) who leaked this obviously wanted the decision sooner rather than later and didn't care how they got it. That is very unprofessional IMHO. That member or members should be removed from the board during the 'Fire Mack' meeting. Once the defecation hit the rotary oscillator (S*** hit the fan) Buchko should have immediately contacted Mack and told him what was going on. It's unprofessional and cowardly not to tell Mack. Buchko shouldn't have made a recommendation anywhere near as huge as firing the GM right before he went on vacation, heck he shouldn't plan a vacation during the season at all. He knew there were leaks on the board, so he knew the info would get to the media. Did he use the leak to have Mack fired in his absence? If so, getting rid of him should be the next on the BOD's to do list. If not, then he is an idiot and getting rid of him should be the next thing on the BOD's to do list anyway. As for the Buck goes back to #2... it was announced before the Mack story broke, so I don't think the two things are related.

You're going to need an extra person cuz the chair is for two people to curl up in.