TBURGESS

Yes, it applies to both. VAJ was behind a horrible O line and an OC who didn't want to run the ball. Behind our O line, with Brady O, he'd have a ton more tools to work with. You can add in Strev's paycheck, but no, you can't replace Zach even up for $350K.

I'd expect them to be in on VAJ or Ford before they'd be willing to pay $600K for Collaros. That being said, I'd be happy to trade Collaros and go younger/cheaper. You're confusing team with QB again.

I don't think that Collaros will knock off a 12-14 win season next year, so that's not the bar I'd worry about. VAJ is the best available QB, behind our O line, he could be amazing. Ford can make every throw and can run like the wind. He'd be my 2nd choice. Alexander showed great promise, but he's got very few reps. Not ready for the starting QB job, but would be a great #2 for either of the above QB's. BTW: Do you think that any team would trade for Collaros and his overly large contract.

If we cut Zac (we won't) we pay him $250K. If we keep him we pay him $600K. The question is... is it worth the sunk $250K to move on from Collaros and go to a younger QB? I'd say it is, but I totally understand folks who say it isn't.

He shouldn't have been on the field at all considering he couldn't grip the ball properly. As he was on the field, give him a quick easy throw to see if he still had enough zip to keep playing.

IMO it's either Schoen or Lawler and I'd take Lawler.

I like that list. I'd add Streveler, Schoen, Gauthier & Whitehead.

Buck called the play. The read took Collaros to the deep throw.

Buck used the same scheme as he did last week. We didn't come up with the bombs this week & he didn't change anything. Why on earth did he call a deep ball for Collaros on his first throw with a glove?

This game, like most of them, will be won/lost at the LOS. Toronto's DL owned our OL this year. If they can do that again, we could be in trouble. Our DL hasn't owned their OL this year. They could out physical us & their kick returns are way better than ours. Our big advantage is at QB and DB. No Kelly = no win for the Argos.

Say you pay out $200K, is Rourke's name value worth that to the league?

VAJ or Ford would be better than Harris IMO.

1. Collaros - Best playoff game he's ever had. 2. Lawler - Huge play after huge play. 3. Holm - Riders thought they could pick on him. They were wrong. HH: Bucks play calling. Riders were set up to stuff the run. We beat them with the deep ball early and often.

The Riders will put extra bodies close to the LOS on D to try and stop Brady ball & to reduce Collaros' time to throw deep. We'll try to establish Brady early and often. On O they'll run a ton on 1st down. We haven't had to play them with Armstead and Oulette yet. Harris will use the dink and dunk on 2nd to pick up firsts. This game could come down to who has the better return team, them, or FG kicker, us.

MOS saying they're healthy just means their arms and legs are still attached.

After looking at your breakout, I still say that we don't have much, if any, advantage at QB. BTW: Wins is a team stat, not a QB stat. Holy hyperbole 17! Harris is what he is and that gets the job done a lot of the time. That's hardly hyping him or a huge thing.

Why go 8.5 games for one and 8 for the other? Wouldn't 8 to 8 be a better comparison or 7 to 7 for that matter.

Playoff Stats Passing: Years: 2015-2023 Games: 7 Completions: 173 Attempts: 264 Completion Percentage: 65.5% Yards: 2,143 Touchdowns: 14 Interceptions: 5 Passer Rating: 94 NOTE: He doesn't need to be a cold weather hero. He just needs to do what he's done all year.

Harris has been the better QB this year. GP Y Y/G EFF TD INT COMP% Harris 12 3264 272 108.4 20 9 72.4 Collaros 18 4336 240 96.3 17 15 70.1 Stats from CFL.CA

That's the other pick that hit the ground. The first pick was taken away because of the penalty on them. My bad. I looked at the online resource: https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/instant-replay/command-centre-reviews/ which says: As the actual rules say: A turnover (Fumble lost or Interception) has been ruled on the field. The play would not be automatically reviewed.

The ball was still moving so it wasn't a pick while his foot was in bounds. As it was a possible turnover, it would have been automatically reviewed. Folks may not like the conclusion but that doesn't make it the wrong call. Montreal fans are likely complaining about the pick being taken away from them, when our receiver clearly initiated contact with their DB to draw an illegal contact penalty. Note that illegal contact is not a challengeable call so they got it right.

I've acknowledged the inherent risk, but you're greatly over rating that risk. I'd say it's a 90% chance that they retain the ball in the endzone and take it on the 53. Lets just say we won because of a gale force wind that came outta nowhere to give us the win. Does that story make you happier?

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying changing 0 plays in the game, we lose if they simply make 1 correct coaching decision even if the wind she blow like 50 bear in their face. I'm also saying not making a play is different than not making the right coaching decisions. Coaching decisions are made prior to taking the field on the play. They aren't made in real time at game speed. They aren't physical mistakes. They aren't making the right read or making the tackle or taking a penalty. (This is where we disagree) On the 61 yard try, the ball was caught on the 2 yard line. Let it bounce and it goes into the endzone 99 times out of 100. The returner is 20 yards closer to the ball than the kick team. If the ball goes out of the endzone without being touched, the receiving team still gets the ball. If they get it in the endzone they still get the ball. The only risk is us getting to the ball first. Give up the point and take the ball at the 40 or 53 in this case as it was the LOS when we kicked, is the right call 99 times out of a 100 & coaches should take those odds unless the single point means a tie or a win at the end of the 4th.

No, it's if the Als simply made the correct decision on either of 2 plays, they win. That's not the same as if we'd caught that ball or took advantage in the red zone or if they hadn't called that penalty.

The fact is that we didn't take advantage of our red zone chances. Our first FG was wide. Mtl should have given us the point and taken the 40 yard line. That would have eliminated our first FG. Our 61 yarder was short. Mtl should have given us the point and that would have eliminated our winning FG no matter what the wind did.