Bigblue204

Guess we will have to settle for no stats AND no Touchdowns.

Put the drink down. They won 1 game, against the worst team in the league....and that's putting it lightly.

Wasnt Carlos Anderson in the Bombers TC a few years ago, made the team, then blew up his knee...or was that someone else?

I was buzzed last night when I replied, so this morning I thought maybe I was in the wrong....this just confirmed I wasnt. Points....like touchdowns...the thing the Defense hasnt given up in 2 games? Wtf am I missing? Can anyone else make sense of this "argument"?

.

Cant expect rider fans to know/understand the rules

Go pound sand. Streveler was fine. Executed the plays that were called. You must have a special definition of Kicked in saskatchewan. Sliding and hitting it with his knee doesnt qualify as kicking in the rest of the world.

I call em how I see em

There is no debate. You're stupid.

You have to be a God damn ******* moron to be complaining about the way the defense played today. End of story 1 td in 3 games...done. theres no argument against that.

I believe Lucky is his nickname...

Lol I fixed it

Chris matthews

Yeah the beat down they put on TO made me rethink the ol "over hyped" talk about Hammy. That was a legit performance by every aspect of their team. You don't drop 60 points very often in football and to do so, you need to be playing a **** team, but also need to be a very efficient team.

Cant give Davis the early/quick reads. Ssk was doing that to him all game and he torched them. Bring pressure, and disguise coverage and Davis will hold on to the ball like it's his child.

Oddly enough, the last few years it seems to be the away team that gets it done between these two teams. Saying that. Trevor Harris is no longer there, and the bomber coaches have a very good understanding of Davis.

The good part about TO sucking so bad, it makes picking fantasy players a bit easier...loading up on BC WR's this week.

Lol, sure....youre less wrong then me...if that makes you feel better. Either way, you're still wrong.

I think it will get better

Close, it's more in line with hypothetical situations being equal due to the fact they can not be proven. Unless of course we take whatever it is that you do, that allows you to see these hypothetical situations unfold. You're hypothetical situation where lucky doesn't play, leaves out the fact that he would have been replaced with another player, game plans would have changed and the offense would have looked different....key word there is different. Not worse, not better. Just different. Your opinion is that it would have been worse (which is why they would have lost) mine was they would have been exponentially better. Neither can be proven, even though yours was based in reality a bit more, it was still a ******* ridiculous thing to say.

Yes very good. Way to get my point.

Nope. It could just as easily been, without Lucky we win by 50. Cause his replacement would have been even more unstoppable. Without Nichols we win by 700023. There is no way to prove your statement or mine. Someone would have had to replace those two, they could very well have been the greatest football players ever. It's all hypothetical and makes for an invalid argument.

Can you send me some of whatever it is that you take, that allows you to see into different dimensions? Next you're going to say, without a football, we wouldn't be playing football. Or something magical like, Without IGF the Bombers would be playing somewhere else. Your insight is refreshing and delightful.

Hes also never been shut out...by anyone...ever.

He can only beat who is put in front of him. You're right though, I'm sure if Collaros were playing things would have been much different, just look at the last time Nichols played against Collaros. The riders at least scored some points in the Wsf.