TrueBlue4ever

Patrick earns my vote based on his play and his success. He and Frank Rigney paved the way for Leo Lewis to weave his magic. And if Kenny Ploen’s 4 Grey Cups make him the all-timer at QB over more physically gifted pivots (as I suspect it deservedly might), then those 4 rings Patrick has count for a lot too. His genetic dynasty is just an added bonus for me. Honestly, no wrong choice with Black, Ceretti, LaBatte, or Butler on pure talent either pairing up with Bastaja, who was top of the heap IMO.

One man's take: One of the more anonymous positions on the field, many of these nominees never got the "name" recognition of their brethren, but provided solid and steady play and paved the way for some great running backs in their time, and in some cases displayed great durability. Working alphabetically: Bastaja - the most decorated of the guards with 6 divisional and 2 league all-star nods, and only one of two Bomber guards to win the Schenley for outstanding lineman in the CFL. Along with Black, Bonk and Walby, was part of a ridiculously strong o-line in the mid-80's that helped Willard Reaves become a star. Black - an ironman with a bit of a nasty streak, he anchored the line throughout almost all of the team's last great sustained run of excellence. Bond - two great years, but left for greener pastures (both in terms of money and uniform colour) and doesn't have the mileage of some other candidates Brown - effective in his half decade here, but his efforts could not translate into team success Butler - the other Schenley winner in the group, he was dominant in his time here, and also in his other league stops (not to be factored in) and considered one of the best linemen in the CFL, regardless of position. Only his smaller sample size in Winnipeg keeps him from top two consideration Ceretti - part of the original Bomber dynasty in the 1930's-40's and the most tenured candidate with 16 seasons under his belt, and if Vince Leah ranks you among the best ever, that's heady praise Kotowich - not sure if you want an o-lineman who has a "nice guy" award named after him, but his legacy in this city is very strong indeed LaBatte - the best lineman the Bombers had during his time here, and it took a while to recover once he left via free agency. Loses points for ditching us for the 'Riders. Lear - enjoyed the first taste of Bomber Grey Cup success, and made his name later as an NFLer and Stamps head coach in that perfect 1948 season. Lueck - two good seasons, but too small a sample size to contend here Mogul - in the group with Lear and Ceretti in the 30's, albeit less feted than the other 2 Patrick - a big part of the 50's-60's dynasty teams, playing both ways, and logged more games than any other candidate. Also won more Grey Cups than any other, blocked for Leo Lewis, and the only lineman in this group to get an Outstanding Canadian nom. His civic legacy and family tree put him a level above for me. Piper - Patrick's partner, matched his all-star numbers, but was never chosen as the team's best lineman like his teammate was Sheridan - the guy you'd most want on your side in a barroom brawl, no all-star nods, injuries and a sour departure hurt his standing Thorson - picked up the slack for Patrick and Piper when they retired, but could never reach the same level of team success they had In the end, it's Bastaja's awards and Patrick's family legend that clinch it for me. They are my top 2.

112 games in 8 seasons (1970-77), no all-star noms or award recognition, outshone by Bill Frank in that era.

I had overlooked Sheridan in making my list. He was twice nominated as the Bombers best o-lineman, so I have added him here, despite his lack of all-star nods. Injuries caught up with him, and after sitting for a year on injured reserve he was let go. Sadly, he was quite bitter in his departure and threw the Bombers medical staff under the bus. Signed with Calgary but retired a couple of months later before ever suiting up.

Choose two. Here are the bios: CFL all-stars first awarded in 1962. Most Outstanding Lineman first awarded in 1956 and included defensive linemen, Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman first awarded in 1974. Nick Bastaja – 143 games in 9 seasons (1980-88), 6 time divisional all-star (1981, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88) and 2 time CFL all-star (1984, 85), 4 time team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1979, 82-84), Western Division Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1983), CFL Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1985), 2 Grey Cup appearances (1984, 88), 2 time Grey Cup champion (1984, 88) David Black – 166 games in 11 seasons (1985-95), 3 time divisional all-star (1989, 93, 94) and CFL all-star (1993), 4 Grey Cup appearances (1988, 90, 92, 93), 2 time Grey Cup champion (1988, 90) Travis Bond – 28 games in 2 seasons (2016-17), divisional and CFL all-star (2016) and CFLPA all-star (2017), team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (2016) Buddy Brown – 53 games in 4 seasons (1975-78), 2 time divisional all-star (1976, 77) Larry Butler – 32 games in 2 seasons (1980-81), 2 time divisional all-star (1980, 81) and 2 time CFL all-star (1980, 81), CFL Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (1981) Bill Ceretti – 71 games in 16 seasons (1931-41, 45-49), 3 time divisional all-star (1938, 40, 46), 8 Grey Cup appearances (1935, 37-39, 41, 45-47), 3 time Grey Cup champion (1935, 39, 41), referred to by Vince Leah as “one of the finest Canadian-born linemen in the history of the game”, nicknamed “Red Dog” because of his card-playing skills Ed Kotowich – 99 games in 7 seasons (1955-61), divisional all-star (1959), 4 Grey Cup appearances (1957-59, 61), 3 time Grey Cup champion (1958, 59, 61), after retirement, was a St. Boniface alderman from 1968-77, Winnipeg Rods asst. coach as well as involvement in Winakwa and Windsor Park football programs, multiple community board positions, the club’s “Good Guy” award for “football ability, team camaraderie, and extraordinary effort off the field” is named in his honour Brendan LaBatte – 69 games in 4 seasons (2008-11), 3 time divisional all-star (2009-11), CFL and CFLPA all-star (2011), team nominee for Outstanding Rookie (2008), 3 time team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (2009-11), Grey Cup appearances (2011) Les Lear – 30 games in 7 seasons (1937-43), divisional all-star (1941), 6 Grey Cup appearances (1937-39, 41-43), 2 time Grey Cup champion (1939, 41), CFL Hall of Fame, became the first Canadian trained player to play in the NFL, was head coach of the undefeated 1948 Calgary Stampeder Grey Cup championship squad Bob Lueck – 29 games in 2 seasons (1971-72), 2 time divisional all-star (1971, 72) and CFL all-star (1972) Brett MacNeil – 151 games in 10 seasons (1992-97, 1999-2002), divisional all-star (2001) and CFL all-star (2001), 3 Grey Cup appearances (1992, 93, 01) Lou Mogul – 57 games in 11 seasons (1932-42), 2 time divisional all-star (1937, 41), 6 Grey Cup appearances (1935, 37-39, 41, 42), 3 time Grey Cup champion (1935, 39, 41) Steve Patrick – 172 games in 13 seasons (1952-64), 2 time divisional all-star (1958, 59), team nominee Most Outstanding Lineman (1958), team nominee Most Outstanding Canadian (1959), 6 Grey Cup appearances (1953, 57-59, 61, 62), 4 time Grey Cup champion (1958, 59, 61, 62), member of Manitoba Legislative Assembly from 1962-77, sons Steve Jr. and James played in the NHL, grandson Nolan currently in the NHL, and daughter Tara played university volleyball Cornel Piper – 163 games in 11 seasons (1957-67), 2 time divisional all-star (1960, 61), 6 Grey Cup appearances (1957-59, 61, 62, 65), 4 time Grey Cup champion (1958, 59, 61, 62) Matt Sheridan – 86 games in 8 seasons (2001-08), 2 time team nominee Most Outstanding Offensive Lineman (2004, 05), 2 Grey Cup appearances (2001, 07) Sherwyn Thorson – 91 games in 7 seasons (1962-67), divisional all-star (1962), 2 Grey Cup appearances (1962, 65), Grey Cup champion (1962)

Well, the way they played against the Ducks and the Coyotes, maybe we should hope for more games against weak teams.

delete

delete

What, they’re not supposed to bend that way? 🤪

I agree, but they gave him a 10 minute match penalty, which would suggest intent to injure, so not sure how the committee will reconcile that. Perhaps Kreidr’s elbow earlier had their radar up, so they tossed him after seeing another head injury to keep the game from getting out of hand.

Lemieux got a 10 minute match penalty for an elbow, so he'll have another hearing with the discipline committee. As a repeat offender from earlier this year, he could get hammered. I've seen the hit though, the Canuck player was tripped up as was on his knees falling into Lemieux, who was going for a body check to clear the net. The player (Roussel) just happened to have his head at Lemieux's elbow level at that particular moment, and Lemieux did not extend his arm or anything. Had Roussel kept his feet, this would have been an ordinary body check IMO. But Lemieux's history will work against him, I suspect.

Did you read my list (gentle jab only)? Bill Frank was a 5 time league all star and 4 time club nominee for most outstanding lineman, as well as a CFL hall of gamer. He was on the list and will be a serious challenger. Buddy Brown was not mentioned anywhere in the club’s media guide as an all star or best lineman nominee, so I did not have him listed. I have now found another source that had him noted as a 2 time all star, so I will add him at guard. Thanks.

Only one divisional all star award, but I will add him, even though he won’t be anywhere near the top 2 at tackle.

I agree with your assessment of the guys you give serious consideration to, and would add Bill Frank to that list. January and Perez were both named the club’s outstanding lineman for 3 consecutive years respectively, Godspeed twice in a row, so they make the grade as nominees at least based on those accolades (I needed some objective system of inclusion so I used divisional and league all star nods, Schenly Award noms, and club Hall of Fame selection as my starting point and then whittled down a bit from there, hence my exclusion of Gorrell, who ticked none of those boxes in his time with the Bombers).

Gorrell was a monster in his earlier days with Hamilton and Ottawa, and was a 4 time all-star and 2 time Schenly award nominee for the East, but his time with Winnipeg came after paired with Walby at the other tackle spot, “the twin towers” were strong, but he never had an all star nod with the Bombers and wasn’t even the best on his own team I will add him, but honestly this list of tackles is already at 16 with only 2 who will make the grade, and will he top Walby, Rigney, Tinsley, or Frank, to name but 4? Key factor is that his prowess with other teams is NOT to be factored in, only his efforts with the Bombers

So the special teams have been completed, with Wade Miller taking the last spot, and John Bonk is running away with the vote at Centre. Therefore it is time to move on to the guards and tackles. I have divided them up as best I can into their specific spot, hopefully I have not made any glaring errors as to who plays in what position (some players split time at both, tried to divide them based on where they either played the longest or where they received league recognition at all-star time). All info as to position comes first from the Blue Bomber media guide and then other online player sites - don't hate on me if I got a position wrong, but please offer corrections, and as always any omissions. Here is a sizable list of nominees to start things off. GUARD - Nick Bastaja, David Black, Travis Bond, Larry Butler, Bill Ceretti, Brendan LaBatte, Ed Kotowich, Les Lear, Bob Lueck, Brett MacNeill, Lou Mogol, Steve Patrick, Cornell Piper, Sherwyn Thorson TACKLE (there will be at least a couple of really great players who won't make the top 2 here) - Stanley Bryant, Mo Elewonibi, Bill Frank, Martin Gainor, Dan Goodspeed, Jamarcus Hardrick, Richard Huffman, Glenn January, Dave Mudge, Butch Norman, Christopher Perez, Frank Rigney, Roger Savoie, Bobby Thompson, Buddy Tinsley, Chris Walby

It would have been 17 (16 actually if you apply the ROW option and assume that wins come by that means) last night before the Wild loss to San Jose. If you remove the ROW angle, the magic number is now 15 (combo of points gained by Winnipeg and points lost by Minnesota to guarantee that the Jets finish above Minny in the standings). The numbers change fast, no fault ascribed to you for the post.

Well folks, the solution is to rise above any name calling and sidetracking arguments designed to derail the topic and move on. KBF and pigseye have an opinion, and they are entitled to it. They even try to offer studies to back up their opinions. So let them. The simple answer to those studies is to challenge their veracity, which actually gets to be kind of fun if you want it to be. Like Jon Stewart said on his final show about sniffing out bull ****. It took a few minutes to determine that the Taylor study was debunked and his slanted peer review process was a sham. KBF conveniently forgot about the actual study and said the counter-argument "didn't prove what it proved". We called out the Heartland Institute he worked at, and again, he shifts the narrative saying we are sheep who follow big brother rather than addressing the issue of a flawed study. Pigseye to his credit points out a flawed study on the other side, one that the authors copped to when their math did not add up. That is what science is supposed to be about - withstanding disprovability. He then posts the hurricane study, which basically does not say anything conclusive one way or another if you take a read at it. It simply says we cannot definitively tie an increase in hurricane intensity to human involvement, It is interesting that the same study does accept as a premise that mankind is responsible for the rising sea temperatures and that some models show a correlation with hurricane intensity (one shows the opposite, and others are non-conclusive). Hopefully he is not holding up this study as "proof" that climate change is a hoax, but rather the idea that this particular hypothesis is not yet proven and further study is needed. But let's get past the baiting and accusations of "climate deniers" and "chicken littles". Such inflammatory rhetoric serves only to create division - a staple of internet discussion boards. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just be prepared to back it up with facts, and if called on it, use those facts to bolster your point, or, if your argument falls, have the simple dignity to acknowledge that you were wrong (a real toughy for so many). And if you find yourself proving the other side wrong, spare everyone the gloating - that is no better in terms of keeping peace on the boards. MY OPINION, and it is only mine, is that KBF mentions the "politicization" of climate science because, as he put it himself "It's all about power and nothing about science". Well, that may or may not be true, or is partially true, but wouldn't that apply to both sides of the argument, and not just one? It seems that big oil and big gas have a lot of sway (power) in politics and would like to keep the status quo, and could do so by thwarting efforts to decry their system as one that is destroying the planet. I have a motivation for accepting the 97% who say climate change is real, strongly influenced by mankind, and that significant changes are needed to avoid dire consequences - I am concerned about the future planet I leave for my kids. I am no scientist, but I have noticed an increase in extreme weather, and when I am told the last ten years have all been the hottest ever record (or 9 out of 10, if I have misquoted the result I admit my mistake - it is not meant to deceive). I wonder KBF, what is your motivation, beyond offering a counterpoint? You call it a scam, one designed to take your money and take power. Power from whom? Those who have it now? Would they not be equally motivated to post studies to keep them in power? And is your personal money more important than having an inhabitable planet, when 97% of the consensus says this is the crisis we are facing? Anyway, we can see where the thread has gone, and I enjoy a healthy debate and don't want to see another thread locked down, so let's get back to tackling the issue and not each other. If someone tries to switch the topic when questioned, and one re-asking of the question does not elicit a desired response, let's all just move on. By the way, here is a counter piece on Karl Zeller. Seems he and his co-researcher used false names when publishing their study, and when outed, pulled the study. They offer an explanation for why they did, which fits KBF's explanation that they had to use false names because of the perceived bias of their work as contrarians. Sadly, their explanation talks about the rejection of their earlier works and manuscripts because of bias, yet we don't have those earlier works to determine if their findings were flawed or not, so we'll never know (from Zeller, anyway) if that rejection was based solely on his stance, or some flaw in his research. One would hope his work would stand on its own with provable scientific merit. The piece offers other examples of where this pseudonym practice was done, and I think it is important to recognize the rationale and not just dismiss it, and the value of double-blind studies. I also note that a NASA researcher also points out the flaw in the study itself, not just the questionable (to them) tactics of hiding behind a different name. THAT is what science should be - ignore the author, challenge the findings. This NASA researcher claims that a too simplistic mathematical model with too few data points is used, and fudged some numbers regarding Mars to make it fit the model. So I can appreciate that the article is not just an attack on the man but points out flaws in his scientific model (at least according to the researcher). Would have preferred a more thorough rebuttal if there were grounds to do so Here is the entire article, a good read to give some perspective on both sides: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/?utm_term=.86d3367f1826 So let's all be vigilant, and challenge the findings and not just each other, and be clear on our motives when asked. Galileo was imprisoned for his belief that the world was round and revolved around the sun, but did not back down from his scientific claims in the face of establishment religious and political pressure. Maybe we can all aspire to the same conviction and back up our beliefs with solid evidence and not derail topics with simple rhetoric. Namaste!

delete

Actually it's 14. Minnesota can get no more than 98 points right now, and assuming that the Jets' wins are of the ROW variety, if they win 7 games they will have more ROW wins than Minny, and that is 1st tie breaker.

That model assumes that the other teams all win out, which isn't going to happen either. But right now this is the simple math of what the Jets need to do regardless of any other team's performance. I'd say that anything other than the option of finishing first in the conference is definitely in play.

Jets playoff watch, as of 10:00 am March 11: Assuming all regulation or overtime wins: - Clinch a playoff spot with an 8-6 record - Clinch the top wildcard spot with an 8-5-1 record - Clinch 3rd in the Central with a 10-4 record - Clinch 1st in the Central with an 11-2-1 record - Clinch 1st in the West with a 14-0 record, and 2 Calgary losses and 2 losses and a tie by San Jose in non head-to-head games with the Jets

If you ever want to convince someone of the damage alcohol and drug abuse can do, show them side by side pictures of Vincent in the mid-80's and then in 1996 after his near-fatal drunk driving accident, where he broke his neck. Had to have his leg amputated later in life due to his poor health. Truly a guy on top of the world who lost it all due to his demons.

Sorry that I missed Vankoughnett. He seemed undersized to me (yet was 6'4", weighed only 240 lbs) but he had a nasty streak (not dirty, but you didn't mess with him). As for Mo, all I can remember of his days at centre was that he butchered the shotgun snap so badly for the first 6 games or so when he was pressed into action at that position that the QBs had to move back under centre because he kept rifling them over their heads. Needless to say he did not long snap.