TrueBlue4ever

The NDP here in BC tried the same campaign in 2013. Every time you asked the NDP why I should vote for them, I'd get something like "CHRISTY CLARK SUCKS!!" or something similar. I'd say, ok, no argument here, but other than that, why should I vote NDP? And I'd just get this confused look, like they hadn't really thought that far ahead. When you don't give people reason to vote for the devil they don't know, they chose the one they do know. And yet I wonder if you asked many in Manitoba why they should vote for Brian Pallister, would their answer not overwhelmingly be "Selinger sucks, he lied, time for change" rather than saying anything about Pallister. Maybe the simple answer "he's different than the guy who is in who I am fed up with" is a reason to vote for someone as much as it is a vote against someone. But the issue isn't voting against someone moreso than voting for someone - that has really been the case in most (all?) elections where the ruling party falls. The fact is it only bothers people when it is their party that is falling out of favour. Given your repeated distaste for "New Dumb" I have a hunch the "I'm voting against the Selinger government" stance as a reason to vote Conservative doesn't bother you or seem uneducated or shortsighted.

*NEWS FLASH* This just in - Cougars were recently seen roaming in the area across from MTS Centre in downtown Winnipeg.

I'm a little sour with this news, but not at the Bombers mind you. I will say to all of those who are pumping up Sam Hurl and saying Muamba wouldn't have improved us equally for the extra money we would pay: Is Sam Hurl a candidate for Most Outstanding Canadian in the CFL or have any chance at being considered by NFL teams for a spot? Because that's the comparable to Muamba right now. Think about how far Hurl is from that and that should say how much better a player the Als now have. But I'll say that there is some bitterness towards Muamba in this corner. Hey, do what's best for your career, but when he said he'd come to Winnipeg as part of his "negotiation tour", then blew us off for a supposed workout with an NFL team that never happens, and signs with Montreal 7 days later without ever re-establishing contact with the Bombers, it says to me that the club would have talked contract but he was never ever interested in returning here. Disappointing since we let him out of his contract early to pursue the NFL in the first place, on top of employing his brother to keep him here when Cauchy had no business being on a football field. I could have done without the dog and pony show and empty promises of including Winnipeg in the negotiation process.

No the problem with Black is that it's all forced, with Dunigan it's genuine. You can't fake that kind of excitement but Black tries. It's not about any biases either, it's about whether someone is good at their job or not and there are a lot of variables to that. There is no one size fits all broadcaster but most of the ones TSN uses are terrible. Cuthbert and Dunigan are the best two by far. Cuthbert because he's just a pro and knows what his job is as the commentator and doesn't try and step outside of that role too much, Dunigan because he has that genuine enthusiasm that too many people (ie. Duane Forde) try hard to fake but it just comes across as painful. That's a very fair comment and I hadn't considered that angle. Good point.

I often feel that the Rod Black hate around here is overblown, like it's the one negative thing people here can agree on without name-calling each other, so it gets over-exaggerated how bad he is. Funny that people hate on him for being so hyper when he calls a game as a massive failing, but laud Matt Dunigan for exactly the same personality quirk (betting that if Matty never wore Blue and Gold he'd get ragged on a lot more, like Climie or Schultz do), but to each their own I guess. I think he still makes mistakes (as do others, but not being scrutinized quite as closely for every gaffe), and yeah, his voice goes up a few octaves when the play is going on (not good given his nasal tone at times), but he's better than he was. Just a matter of taste I suppose (and BTW as an aside, since earlier renditions of this topic branched out to other broadcasters and I expressed my disdain for Paul Edmonds calling Jets games, I will say I heard his broadcast of the Wild game last night and he seemed to be keeping up with the play better and being less wordy, so good on him for working his craft). I always remember the worst gaffe of Black's career, which was a post-game interview in Lillehammer after Canada had just lost the gold medal game to Sweden in a shootout. One of the junior players is offering some insight into the devastating loss, and Black brings up his father, who had died of cancer a few months before: "You told your dad just before he died that you'd bring home the gold for him. Now that you've come away with the silver, do you think he'd be........(long awkward pause during which I'm sure the director was screaming into his earpiece not to suggest his dad would be disappointed in his son for failing to keep his promise), what are you thoughts about him at this moment and your journey here?" THAT was cringe-worthy. Now I find him tolerable, if not infrequently too excitable (but hey, that's his schtick, so be it). Just happy we have enough broadcast teams to cover every CFL game now. As for Suitor, can't be bothered to get too worked up about him either, but where as Black is just an equal opportunity cheerleader for all teams and players in an effort to pump up the broadcast, Suitor has let his bias show from time to time (although again, less so now than in the past). But any commentary on Suitor for me begins and ends with his two-word analysis of "the greatest football play of all time" (so says Milt Stegall). 100 yard last play bomb from Glenn to Stegall in double coverage to beat the Eskimos in Edmonton, and these were the pearls of wisdom from various broadcasters: Bob Irving: "He caught the ball between two stunned Eskimo defenders; I don't think Stegall could believe it himself. The Bombers win on a miraculous play, and who could have imagined that." Bryan Hall: "Stegall, GONE!" (repeat, 100 times or so) Chris Cuthbert: "This is unbelievable. Milt Stegall, the most remarkable touchdown of his career, and it's 100 yards, and the Bombers win!" Glen Suitor: "Oh no!"

Clearly, some outlet covered it, or you wouldn't have come across it. But, hey, the media also missed Harper's lousy interview too. Oh wait, there wasn't one. Because he won't answer more than 5 questions at any presser, screens his conferences so only "approved" media and attendees show up, and has his crony supporters hurl insults at anyone who asks an uncomfortable question. If security hasn't already removed them.

You must get dizzy sometimes from the spin you put on things.

70% of Canadians would say doing the latter would achieve the former. So they kind of are focusing on improving Canada (how's that for spin? ;-) )

I have been on the "trade Buff" bandwagon for 3 years, because you know what you get with him. 20 games a season at most where he is the best player in the NHL and can single-handedly take over a game, 20 games where he will cost the team at least one goal against with his cherry-picking and lack of defensive effort, and another 40 or so where he is there as another player. The headache now is that he will want a big contract, but more importantly, one with term to carry him forward for many years. He is now on the wrong side of 30 years old, and given his past quasi-commitment to fitness (300+ pounds at the end of a season once, remember?) who thinks he will be an effective player and worth his salary at age 36-37, much less still playing at that age? I'd go to his agent and say "Here is $25.5 million, that is what we will pay Byfuglien regardless of term. You decide how many years you want attached to it, minimum of 3 years or we'll scale back the dollars". If he wants 3 years, then it's $8.5 million/year, 4 years = $6.425 million/year, 5 years = $5.125 million/year, etc. If he wants to invest in a long-term deal to maximize his playing years, then the team should get a friendly cap hit for that trade-off.

The first Jets jersey I got had Slater's name and number on it. Loved his all-around game (and he seemed to be a genuinely great guy on top of that), so I'm sorry to see him go. Bet he wishes he'd taken that contract offer in hindsight. Secretly, I was hoping the club would offer him a small two-way deal and tell him they wanted him to play with the Moose in a Mike Keane veteran role, teaching the young'uns about being a pro and coming to practice with a good work ethic every day while still getting to play the game and remain in Winnipeg. Hold the carrot that if there was injury issues, he might be a fill-in call up for 4th line centre duty, but the goal was for him to finish off in the AHL and then have a scouting or coaching spot in the organization when he chose to retire. Would be good for him, and the club could show that they take care of their veterans and might draw other players to Winnipeg that way.

TUP, you made mention of "your newsroom" in a previous post about the Department of Finance release that the media was asked to be quiet about for an hour after its release. Just wondering what news media outlet you work for, since you seem so consumed with media bias on the left.

Just curious, since there are many strong opinions about the current regime, past regimes, and how to build a winner and get us out of this funk. So here is my question: As a Bomber fan, if you were told "This management team can get you a regular season division title and a Grey Cup appearance by next year, and back-to-back Grey Cup games, and win a Grey Cup in your home park within the next 5 years, but within those same 5 years you will also have to miss the playoffs with only 5 wins, and 2 years after your Grey Cup you will have to suffer an 0-9 start", as a fan would you take that offer?

If Bomber-Rider trash talk was a fight, it would be this (skip to the 2 minute mark):

I don't imagine that any team's given offence is that radically different than another team's one in terms of what a play looks like. A post pattern is a post pattern, a screen play is a screen play, a crossing route is a crossing route. The terminology may be different in the play-call, but the X's and O's would probably be quite similar. The issue is knowing that "Omaha" is your new team's name for a fly route when you called "Bulldog" on your old team. The other issue is in-game play-calling, which is knowing when to run what play against what defensive scheme is being shown. That's where offences will differ, not in what plays are in their repertoire. That is why offences look more or less successful; what is called and when, and not in what actual plays are in the playbook.

You've really got to start wearing a helmet and cage when you play. On second thought, it's probably a little late, so go nuts and continue making those saves with the top of your melon! Or stop pushing in the Q-tip when you feel resistance.

The only time he's ever started a game he was 14/23 for 194 yards no tds and no ints.... Let's see what he can do before we go completely doom and gloom. Those numbers aren't horrible, perhaps the guy just sucks coming off the bench into shitty games?Yeah resting on the bench tends to affect a QBs aim.Maybe resting ,caused his eyes to stray to the turf hence his ground balls.How many turf skips we gonna get now? 90% of the game is half mental. Only 30% of the time though. 60% of the time, it works…every time.

You are also a negative nancy far too often.You are also not refuting my claim...Disagreeing with you is refuting enough. non-denial denial ‎(plural non-denial denials) 1.(idiomatic) A statement which appears to deny that something is true, but which, when examined carefully, can be seen to have used diversion, bluster, or ambiguity to avoid making a clear, direct denial.

Good luck waiting for that apology. That's about as likely as a week without an "I told you so" post on these boards. There are still people who haven't apologized for their "Joe Mack has done a lot of good and left us a much better football club than before he was in place" stance, and subsequent name-calling and insults for those who took an opposite stance (except IC Khari, who actually admitted that he was wrong about Mack in the end - kudos to you sir), so you might not want to hold your breath waiting for that concession from others on the Marve debate.

You know what I would like? That we stop worrying about how much we "like" coaches as a basis for hiring them. I don't care if the coach is the biggest "Richard" out there (*COUGH* Chris Jones *COUGH*), winning football will make us all like them plenty good enough.

C'mon guys, i'm trying' here. Just because the Bombers appear to have no heart when they get down, I hope this board has more spine.

Before we write off the season in week 10, remember that even if we lost 38-37 to Calgary yesterday, it still would be a loss and we'd be 3-6, but I suspect the death march would be put on hold. SO, remember that we have: - 2 games against an 0-9 Rider squad left - 2 games against a Jeckyll and Hyde RedBlack team that won't surprise anyone anymore this year - a game against a rather plain looking BC team who we beat already and that has since lost it's best player for the rest of the year - a game against Montreal who we beat already this year and who are still not set at QB - Drew Willy, who is 3-1 when he starts and finishes games this year, will be back for all of those games except for the Riders. I'm not overly optimistic, but we are not dead and buried yet by any means.

The Stamps had wrapped up first place. It was a nothing game to them & they rested a number of key veterans. The focus was the western Final & not the Bombers. To the Stamps it was like an exhibition game & they played a number of backups that game. I don't think BLM or Cornish played the entire game. That's part of it. The bigger reason was that the game was played in a miserable blizzard and Calgary had 5 fumbles, a turnover on downs, had a field goal attempt from 25 yards out hit the upright, and a blocked punt that led to the Bombers only touchdown, and still only lost 18-13. Oh yeah, and that TD drive after the punt block was all of 4 yards and took 2 plays to get it in. Marve threw for 72 yards in one half of football - 42 of which was on one catch and run by Denmark (and Marve wasn't the QB Calgary had prepped for). People here are so fed up with Brohm that they mistakenly turned Marve into some sort of guru saviour without truly judging how unimpressive he was. He has racked up most of his stats in garbage time against prevent defences in blowout losses. Still better than Brohm and his one-skip passes, but fanboys had their blinders on because all we had was unjustified hope that we had a QB who could salvage another lousy season. Perhaps since Toronto didn't have much film on Marve they weren't sure how to defend his game at first. It took one half for them to get a read on his game and adjust, and Marve was essentially ineffective after the half. Calgary had a full game of tape on him and didn't need a half to figure out his weaknesses. These are the same weaknesses many of the doubters have expressed from the beginning (when they weren't being shouted down and labelled as negatrons) - no patience in the pocket, doesn't run through his progressions and looks to make a play with his legs at the first sign of trouble, and now a new weakness has come to light in the fact that he has no touch with the deep ball at all, making his skill set very limited and predictable.

I don't have the numbers to back this up but I think you have to look at the effect of a sack in stopping drives whereas hurries and hits can still result in a positive result for a particular play. It seems to me that the loss of a down (you only get two tries really) and the usual loss of yardage is far more important. Also holding penalties are not near as bad as sacks so they can't be given equal weight. At least in a holding penalty situation the team has a chance to recover from the setback unlike a sack situation where you just might lose the QB altogether as well as down and distance. I have seen that happen a few times. But to summarize this is just musings without statistical backing. Babble on. Here is a stat on that from the CFL: 171 drives where a team gives up a sack. A touchdown was scored on that same drive only 3 times.

What is the issue? In a word, talent. To be more complete: QB: Our starter is 3-1 when he starts and completes a game. He has the 3rd best efficiency rating and 5th best completion percentage among QBs with more than 25 passes, so the offensive schemes seem to work adequately enough for him to succeed. Problem is that we've played 8 games, not 4. We're 0-4 when he gets hurt or doesn't play. Buck Pierce syndrome all over again. With Willy we are competitive, without him, we are woeful (so far). He is tough but may be turning into a glass QB with the repeated pounding, and we do not have a serviceable back-up like Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton possibly (don't like Nicholls but they have kept winning), or even maybe Montreal (Kato has tailed off, but has shown more than anything we've thrown out there). Not enough depth here, therefore a talent problem. O-line: May be twice as good as last year, but as I always said when Zellers had a 2 for 1 sale on clothing, "2 of s#it is still s#it". No consistency, even from our so-called anchors (Bryant and Picard) and injuries here have exposed a lack of depth again. RB: Serviceable, but does anyone look at what we have and think "game-breaker who can put the team on his back" like you would with a Harris, Cornish, Messam, et al? WR/SB: On paper, looks OK, but no one looks at Denmark like he's a Bowman, McDaniel, Owens, Dressler, Grant, Green, Getzlaf, etc. who will get 14 passes and 100+ yards a game automatically and be "the guy", Moore is too injury prone to be considered a threat, and jury's out on Adams, but see Moore, Nick for injury comparable (in a limited sample). No big threat at Canadian receiver yet, just a couple of meal ticket guys (think Stoddard, not Cahoon). D-line: The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Turner can get a safety or be manhandled. Westerman can pile up the sacks, but have teams actively game-planned around his threat like an Elimimian, Foley or Odell Willis? LB: Or glorified DB's playing out of position, more accurately. Bass is good, no question, but the unit as a whole is nothing special. Hurl has been the whipping boy here all season, yet not enough depth to be able to replace him. DB: I like Adams, and Leggatt is solid no question, but still some glaring errors out there on coverages, notably from some vets (Washington comes to mind whenever a receiver is open deep and no DB within 10 yards of him on a clear blown coverage). Special teams: Your kicker is below 65% on converts, and yet not a whisper about his job security. Your best kick returner never gets to anymore because he has to play full-time DB due to a lack of depth at that spot to spell him off (Washington for those who didn't figure it out), your next best guy (based on performance this year, anyway) is not solid enough to be a starting receiver yet (Veltung), and your "starter" must have kidnapped the real Troy Stoudamire and is wearing his jersey this year. East/West may be a great tradition for the Grey Cup match-up, but it is a lousy philosophy for returning punts. Maybe someone should tell him - or bench him, if we had the depth to replace him, which I guess we don't.

Certainly there are reasons, some more obvious than others, as to the firing, but what is really strange is the timing. Axing him after a win is counter-intuitive. It would have been different if there was an outside hire who had been secretly courted and was finally ready to be put in place, but because it is Popp stepping into the role, it required no lead time to implement. So it might suggest that something happened after the game that triggered the move - except Popp has directly come out and said the decision was made before the game occurred. So why not bide your time until another loss and avoid the scrutiny of the move being motivated by "internal conflict" rather than the lack of success on the field? Much easier to sell it then.