Bigblue204

I'm ok with Bastien stepping into Kolherts spot. Or JFG for that matter.

Cornish

Well to your dismay "Canuck" Veltung is in and Gordon (the lightning fast WR is a practice squadder! Please tell me why Veltung received no and I mean no love from you guys. I told you he ran a 4.46 and gordon a 4.68... Geez I don't know but I think... well what does it matter - Justin Veltung is a starter and majority of you Canadians gave him no chance. May a crazed holy man set fire to your nose hairs! Wtf are you talking about?

I don't recall ever hearing anything but positives about the guy.

oh ok. Yeah I'd be ok with whitaker coming on. Though I'm not sure what I'd give up to get him.

Where did you get this info?

Wrong on both counts. Whenever Durant was not behind center, Lapolice's play calling stunk to high heaven and was unwatchable. Unacceptable on all counts and if he was as good as people say he is, every single one of those 7 other teams would've been pounding on his door and blowing up his phone telling him he has a job as coach or OC after he got fired here. That didn't happen and for good reason. And trust me there were way more long balls thrown by our offense last year on 2nd and long than there had been in a while. It was sometimes good, sometimes not good, sometimes Willy did need to check it down instead of trying for a home run like he did in the Banjo Bowl, or against BC in that final game last year. But all in all, at least I can say this offense wasn't playing not to lose like that f***ing clown Lapo tried to instill here. I believe LaPo has turned down a few OC jobs as he only wants to be a HC. Completely disagree with this Lapo's conservativism and play not to lose mentality doesn't resonate well at all with anybody on other teams. Do you think Jim Barker and Scott Milanovich would put up with that in Toronto? Absolutely NOT Would Jim Popp and Tom Higgins put up with that in Montreal? Dinwiddie tried that last year and got demoted for it so NO. Would Huggnagel put up with that in Calgary? No f***in way. Would Chris Jones and Ed Hervey put up with that in Edmonton? If they did Steve McAdoo would not have a job there right now and would get dumped for Lapo immediately. Wally Buono had the option to go after him as head coach when he dumped Benevides yet refused to do so, I wonder why? The Ti-Cats? I don't know but I doubt Bob Young is looking for anything new on O there. You'd figure the Riders after dumping Cortez would be trying to take Lapo home after doing that, and why would Lapo turn down a chance to return as OC to the place he had the most success in? Very strange indeed. Only team I could see putting up with Lapo's tactics is Ottawa given that they rolled with a similar guy in Gibson last year. Bottom line, this silly belief that Lapo is a hot commodity has no water in it. PERIOD!!! Sorry, but how can you claim to know what any of those people think? That's just ridiculous and holds no water. PERIOD!!!

On those three points, I'd just like to add: There was some nice catches by the int and NI players that weren't necessarily big plays, but nice routes and catches in traffic. Collin had a beauty across the middle. I thought Portis looked good. Moved the ball decently, nice foot work and was mobile. He would have had a first down scramble had he not let up to make a move. He was caught from behind when he did. All teams run vanilla, but there definetly different degrees. Hamilton, was always sending at least one guy deep and it was often Fantuz (ha he dropped an easy one) or Grant, Or they would run about 15 yards up to run a corner etc. Even in TO/MTL game, they had guys running more than just hooks and 5 yard outs. Thats pretty much all our guys did. Especially our man play makers. Denmark had a nice catch on the corner route, but moore had 4 catches and I'm fairly sure they were all within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. While I didn't like a lot of what I saw. It was painfully obvious they weren't showing anything. Like I said, I couldn't see the game so thanks for providing your insight. As for our vanilla.... A bunch of short throws with a few big plays are the hallmarks of a MB offence. Pretty much what we've seen since he became the OC. Yeah, I'm worried about MB as the OC still. But will give him the benefit of the doubt for the first bit. My buddy told me, every team MB has been on has been ranked at least bottom 3 for sacks given up. Hopefully that changes this year.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Brohm, and Veltung gone.

On those three points, I'd just like to add: There was some nice catches by the int and NI players that weren't necessarily big plays, but nice routes and catches in traffic. Collin had a beauty across the middle. I thought Portis looked good. Moved the ball decently, nice foot work and was mobile. He would have had a first down scramble had he not let up to make a move. He was caught from behind when he did. All teams run vanilla, but there definetly different degrees. Hamilton, was always sending at least one guy deep and it was often Fantuz (ha he dropped an easy one) or Grant, Or they would run about 15 yards up to run a corner etc. Even in TO/MTL game, they had guys running more than just hooks and 5 yard outs. Thats pretty much all our guys did. Especially our man play makers. Denmark had a nice catch on the corner route, but moore had 4 catches and I'm fairly sure they were all within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. While I didn't like a lot of what I saw. It was painfully obvious they weren't showing anything.

About the missed field goal. The holder lined up only 5 yards back from the line instead of 7. Don't know what kind of difference that makes, but I feel like that may have lead to the miss a bit.

My biggest concern on the Defence, was lack of tackling. The rest of it, it was fairly obvious they were playing soft zone coverage. Not much being shown. On O, Willy looked good for the first few drives, a few hick-ups but nothing serious. Anyone who thinks Marve out played Willy, wasn't paying attention as far as I'm concerned. That first drive was impressive. As the game wore on, the offence got more and more vanilla. I don't get hating on willy for not doing anything, but then saying Moore was impressive....??? Moore litteraly ran 5 yard hooks all night lol. If that doesn't tell you our offence wasn't showing anything. I'm not sure what will. Special teams, again, lack of tackling. Hopefully it gets cleared up.

Deborah in accounting handles returns ****** Deborah, always messing with my invoices. Just leave it on the fax machine Deborah!! Just leave it on the fax!!!!!

I can't see the depth chart at work...and am too lazy to open on my phone. Who do they have listed doing the returns?

by choice? or was he cut?

As bad as Montreals Offence looked last night. It was missing a few key pieces.

Contrary to popular belief. Being "cheap" isn't a Winnipeg thing. It's pretty much an "anyone with limited income" thing. Back to football, the CFL is losing out on a revenue stream in my opinion. Every major sports league has its own online viewing option, some which make more sense than others. I'd be willing to pay for streaming and/or an app. Yes, the more I think about it, I would totally pay to subscribe to a CFL streaming show/programs type deal. Like an NFL channel type of deal

I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. It's up to the "industry" to adjust. Not the consumers. Consumers consume...generally they will want it at the best price. And nothing beats free! So unless the industry adjusts and gives the consumer what they want, they'll continue to get it as best they can. (See music industry) In this case stream it online for free, rather than paying at least $70 a month for a bunch of crap they don't really want. This poster is a part of a growing population (myself included) who don't pay for cable because they already pay for internet, and everything is available online. Some for a smaller fee, others for free. The more you say, providers choose what we get. The older/more out of touch you sound. Cable is dying. Streaming is the future. Give us streams! I also hate cable but I don't see how you can get "everything" without stealing. I know it is common for people to steal music and steal movies but how do you steal live sports channels. I have seen stolen sports streaming content and it sucked. And you know stealing is still stealing even everybody does it. I know the intellectual content that I generate is only useful to a limited number of people but I would not be happy if my work was used by someone else at no cost. I enjoy netflix but I am not getting live sports content there just so you know I am not against streaming just illegal streaming. I'd suggest, if you don't want something stolen and used without permission, don't put it online. And generally streaming sports does suck. Which is why it would be great if there was an option to pay for online CFL streams that were HD

Contrary to popular belief. Being "cheap" isn't a Winnipeg thing. It's pretty much an "anyone with limited income" thing.

I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. It's up to the "industry" to adjust. Not the consumers. Consumers consume...generally they will want it at the best price. And nothing beats free! So unless the industry adjusts and gives the consumer what they want, they'll continue to get it as best they can. (See music industry) In this case stream it online for free, rather than paying at least $70 a month for a bunch of crap they don't really want. This poster is a part of a growing population (myself included) who don't pay for cable because they already pay for internet, and everything is available online. Some for a smaller fee, others for free. The more you say, providers choose what we get. The older/more out of touch you sound. Cable is dying. Streaming is the future. Give us streams!

Asking for a discount is just good business. Why they hell would you pay full price for something if all you had to do was ask for a discount to get one? lol that's a huge part of my job actually. "I don't want to pay you that amount for this service, give it to me cheaper." I'd say about 85% of the time, I get it cheaper.

Man I'm getting pumped for friday

Glenn January? American. Morley might be it though. yeah it only took him to 2014 to meet his expectations

Obby? Obby was taken in the Ottawa dispersal draft when they folded. true true...hhmm....well then....that's a stumper...which is really kinda sad

Obby?