Bigblue204

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I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad.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?

Safe to say Ray is still going to be out a while.

What's Gordon's size like? I don't recall. Was interesting hearing Stegall say how the receivers are going to change in the league due to the new rules. Small/speedier receivers will be the norm, according to him anyway. Maybe Gordon is the beginning?

It was BCs Oline that looked the worst last night. I don't know what type of starters were playing but they had better hope it was none. Lulay won't last behind the group that played last night.

Explain it to Burke then..... takes a ******* knee I actually laughed out loud at this. Almost blowing my cover at work...."yes, this email is hilarious, the numbers and such".....

It is, he hasn't done much. But i'm not sure they were expecting him to contribute early anyway. A few other Canadian rec. have stepped up to the plate and look prime time ready.

Well it is the reason we kicked Brink, Elliott and Goltz to the curb. Right? Yes yes....it had nothing to do with their talent level

He might just float away...

Typical Canadian. Sorry

Anyone find a working link for this game?

I don't have anything against him... he kinda burnt some bridges on his way out... and I'd much rather have any of the guys on our roster than an almost 30-year-old back with serious injury history... True enough, I would totally prefer Cotton or Randle even. But If we needed him, I'd be glad to have simpson.