TBURGESS

The argument is that the BC organization looks really bad for bringing Rourke back 'early' & if we do the same thing, obviously with a different player, we don't look bad. It's not that Rourke is ahead of schedule, because that's a fact. No context needed. Is it OK to bring back a player who thinks he's ready and who gets the Dr's OK even if he doesn't last the game? I say yes and it doesn't matter the player or the injury or how far ahead of the curve he is or the team the brings him back. @Brandonevery player who steps on the field can get hurt any play they are in. That's a statement of fact, not an argument for or against bringing Rourke or Ellingson back. @bearpantsAll the things you talk about are taken into consideration before allowing the player to get back on the field. It doesn't matter if the player is a Bomber or a Lion, a young guy or an old guy, a receiver or a QB, a guy whose going to play 10 snaps or one who will play a quarter. For those who still don't get it: Teams that bring a player back before they are expected to be back do it with the best information that they have, full risk assessment, the Dr's & the players OK. When it doesn't work out, it doesn't make the organization look bad & it doesn't mean that the organization was pressuring the player. Is possible that the org did pressure them, but the simple fact that they played doesn't mean that a true statement.

1st Year 2nd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 This is the same thing that I posted before with the Option year info highlighted this time.

Saying I wouldn't take BC lightly doesn't mean I expect them to win this week. In fact, I did take the Bombers.

If you're reading all the posts you already know that can't happen next year.

I don't think the drop off is as big as you think it is. We won 5 of the 6 "coulda gone either way" games this year. If some had gone the other way, we might be in 2nd or 3rd.

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try. If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

BC's a good team who lost their starting Phenom QB in the middle of the season and still managed to make it to 2nd place overall. They're good enough that VAJ has a winning percentage at QB. Their offence is 2nd in points for, 2 ahead of us & number 1 in net offence, despite losing Rourke. Their defence is 2nd in points allowed, 20 behind us & number 1 in picks. The only team a Rourke led Lions, lost to was the Bombers. They beat Calgary twice, once with Rourke and once with VAJ. I wouldn't take them lightly.

If Rourke gets hurt again his season is over. If he doesn't play, his season is over. Same outcome. The risk is IF getting hurt again costs him next season or an NFL shot. @GCn20 I don't agree that both organizations look bad. I don't think either of them look bad.

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play. Either both organizations look bad or neither do. I take the neither side on this one.

I'm saying when the Bombers do it, it's called bad luck if the player gets hurt, but if BC does it, it's what he deserves, an IToldyaSo moment, and the entire organization looks really bad. I'm scoffing at the double standard, not arguing that it's a good idea. We don't know that the Lions are rushing him back, but that's what folks around here are calling it. We had one poster argue that the Lions were rushing him, and arguing that the Dr's didn't give him the go ahead to to throw in practice, which means he's pushing himself, not that the team is pushing him. FTR: Rourke threw during the time that cameras are allowed, not behind closed doors, so the Dr's and team absolutely knew it was going to happen and gave him the go ahead. The Dr's, who know way more than we do, have given Rourke the go ahead. The team, who have everything to lose if Rourke gets re-injured, have given Rourke the go ahead. Rourke, who would lose an NFL shot next year if he gets hurt again, is ready to at least give it a try. It adds interest to a nothing game this week.

All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below: “A” Grid – 1st or 2nd round C.F.L. Draft Choice “B” Grid – 3rd or 4th round C.F.L. Draft Choice 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Max. - Min. Salary $65,000 $65,000 Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary Max. Sign or Housing (Optional) $5,000 $5,000 50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional) $7,500 $7,500

He's on his first CFL contract after being drafted. The Lions have asked the league to let them pay Rourke more than the CFL max for Cdn's on their first contract. From the collective agreement: Third year: Option year base salary to be negotiated - not to exceed 10% more than the 2nd year base salary

Because the CFL rules say BC can't pay Rouke 5X as much next year.

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

If you believe in Karma (I don't), then you have to be worried about meeting Calgary in the playoffs. Calgary coulda woulda shoulda won at least one, maybe two, of the those games. They have the best running game in the league and the best backup QB.

I used to have one of those T-Shirts. I wish I still had it.

Ellingson was playing great, got hurt, came back too soon, got hurt again. Some would call that the Bombers pushing players into coming back too soon. I'd call it bad luck.

Great news to start my day. Collaros is THE difference maker on our team.

Nope, I expected the Lions to be last or 2nd last at the beginning of the season because of their QB situation. I think Rourke was the best QB in the league when healthy. I don't think that's called a man crush, but whatever. @Booch So you got nothing on the spin front, cuz you don't read what I say, but you call it spin anyway. Sound about right coming from you. You don't need the Dr's OK to throw at practice. As a trainer, you really believe that? Is Rourke ahead of schedule ATM? Sure. Will he remain ahead of schedule? Neither you nor I know that answer, but I'm not pretending to know cuz I'm not a Dr and I don't play one on the internet. Last time I thought I knew more than the Dr's, I thought that Collaros wouldn't last past his first hit. I'm very happy to have been wrong about that, but it taught me a lesson. Don't pretend to know more than the experts. One day, maybe you too will learn that lesson, but likely not cuz you used to almost be someone in the football world.

I bet BA gets a financial penalty for the hit. Picking up a player who has given up, after the whistle, and driving them head first into the ground is UR and should be called in this day and age. If it was the '80's then it was a great hit.

The Dr's let him practice, what more do you need?

I'm not spinning anything, no matter how many times you accuse me of it. FTR: What do you think I'm spinning? You obviously think BC's handling Rourke is wrong, which means you disagree with his doctors. It's like anti-vaxxers who think they know more than the Dr's who have spent their entire lives studying the problem. Hint: If you disagree with the experts, it's most likely that your opinion is the one that's wrong & no, being a trainer doesn't make you an expert. I threw shade on you, not on everyone who played the game or coaches. It's better than calling you names. Maybe you're an ex CFL player, all star, who coaches at a professional level, but even that wouldn't make your opinion unassailable nor would it make you right about how BC is treating the Rourke injury. Why, because it's a medical issue. MOS tells the media that all his players, who still have their limbs attached to their bodies, are going to play. Do you think he's endangering his players? Of course not. BTW: Why won't you answer the questions I asked about training injured players? That is your expertise, isn't it? That's my first post on the matter. I didn't call you or ISO out personally. If you see yourself as an Internet Dr pretending to know what you're talking about then you are an Internet Dr. pretending to know what you're talking about. You could have just said to yourself... "That's not me" and moved on, but you chose to go on the offensive and repeat your "I used to be someone, now I train folks who may become someone" schtick.

Bailey - Great catches and played angry Grant - His returns kept us in the game Jefferson - Knockdowns HH: Lawrence took some 50-50 balls away from BC