TrueBlue4ever

Careful, that sounds like "Rider fan" talk.

I only call people stupid if they post stupid things and don't provide a proper argument to back it up. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that every opinion is valid because everyone is allowed their opinions. That's a quaint notion that I wholeheartedly reject. There are plenty of opinions out there that are devoid or merit and are indeed stupid. You don't like being called out on dumb ideas then maybe apply some critical thinking skills and come up with some opinions that aren't stupid. Or just take your ball and go home, that's what people who can't apply critical thinking tend to do. For what it's worth, you're way off the mark if you think people standing their ground flummox me, I spend all my time here trying to get people to stand their ground so I can have a proper argument. You're not interested in that though, you just want your lunatic ideas given credit but no one gives stupid ideas credit because they're stupid. In summary get over yourself and realize that people are picking apart your dumb ideas because they're dumb not because they're different. You're not as smart as you think you are. Yah. The next thing you know he'll get pissy with the regime at this site, complain that they are overbearing and controlling, and pack up and go start a new Bomber fan site. Ouch....the Rider fan is growing claws...meow!! Meow? So, am I now a Tiger Cats fan or a Lions fan? Geez, make up your mind.

Y is it around here when someone has a different opinion good or bad people like you jump on it as trolling? This is a forum no? Or is it a kumbyas let's not breathe a word of criticism your a troll only forum?It's more a case of choosing to believe that no one could possibly be that stupid so it must be trolling for a reaction. It's not about differing opinions, it's about opinions so unbelievably stupid.Ok who gets to decide that you?Noeller? If it is someone trolling just don't react no? Is Doug Brown an idiot too?It's a slippery slope your traveling.It's the stuff of kids in the school yard. The kids that have been there the longest think it's their school yard and they get to decide what is allowed. Read ahead and you'll see the terms laid out. It's basically threats "Ban him" followed by name-calling. "Stupid", "Troll", until the poor fellow conforms or leaves. Sad really. I'm not going to get into the reasons why they are like this but it is interesting to observe how flummoxed they get when the target of their aggression stands his ground and defies them. I wonder what happens next ... I only call people stupid if they post stupid things and don't provide a proper argument to back it up. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that every opinion is valid because everyone is allowed their opinions. That's a quaint notion that I wholeheartedly reject. There are plenty of opinions out there that are devoid or merit and are indeed stupid. You don't like being called out on dumb ideas then maybe apply some critical thinking skills and come up with some opinions that aren't stupid. Or just take your ball and go home, that's what people who can't apply critical thinking tend to do. For what it's worth, you're way off the mark if you think people standing their ground flummox me, I spend all my time here trying to get people to stand their ground so I can have a proper argument. You're not interested in that though, you just want your lunatic ideas given credit but no one gives stupid ideas credit because they're stupid. In summary get over yourself and realize that people are picking apart your dumb ideas because they're dumb not because they're different. You're not as smart as you think you are. Yah. The next thing you know he'll get pissy with the regime at this site, complain that they are overbearing and controlling, and pack up and go start a new Bomber fan site.

Shhh! You'll be branded as a Rider fan.

Rider sympathizer....or Rider fan? Hmmm..... Neither. I just find it comical (and pretty hypocritical) that Bomber fans on this site get so bent about how popular the Riders are nationwide and how boisterous their fans are about their allegiances, and feel they have to shout it down and de-cry it as a "myth". Sucks for them to be 0-7 and be so close in every game, certainly given the injury issues they have had, but I don't feel sorry for them. No one would feel sorry for the Bombers in the same situation. But I feel no overt need to throw it in their faces unless a fan fires the first shot directly at me (and to my face, not over a message board). But I find it sillier that people feel the need to be bothered by how supportive the Rider fans are, both at home and on the road, and the fact that the media comments on it, and the massive need to say "that's a lie!", or "it just gets soooo annoying" when the most ardent Bomber fans do EXACTLY the same thing, like it's OK for us to do it, but a crime for another fan base to. The perception of a strong Rider national fan base is not inaccurate - come to any Banjo Bowl and see how well their fans travel. This is just my opinion, but it smacks of sour grapes and a massive inferiority complex, like it takes away from how good Bomber fans are if we don't get the same props, or if another team gets any credit. And it is so predictable around here, when we do well we can revel in their failure, but when we have a struggling team that we can't puff our chests out about, we revert to the "well they suck too" and "they are in your face about it (like we aren't?). Just funny how childish it seems, and to me, this petty attitude and classlessness DOES reflect badly on our fanbase (and I don't expect anyone to adopt that last line of thinking). I am sure I am overreacting to most, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I don't need to tear down other anonymous people to make me feel better about myself - I don't want to give that kind power to others to determine my life happiness, especially fans of a competing sports team. Anyway, just my observation and opinion, no Rider flag waving intended. You've done this same rant enough times for me to conclude you are a Rider fan in disguise. Everyone watch out for this guy. If you're not with us, you're against us.....it really is that simple. I don't trust Bombers "fans" who aren't rabidly anti-Riders... i agree that this mindset is quite simple……but I think we are using that word in different contexts. And just to clear up any misconception as to my rooting interests, this "fan" has had Bomber season tickets for 34 years, so my allegiance is just fine without the need to insult other teams' fans, thank you. I'm sure your just as passionate, just in different manner.

Rider sympathizer....or Rider fan? Hmmm..... Neither. I just find it comical (and pretty hypocritical) that Bomber fans on this site get so bent about how popular the Riders are nationwide and how boisterous their fans are about their allegiances, and feel they have to shout it down and de-cry it as a "myth". Sucks for them to be 0-7 and be so close in every game, certainly given the injury issues they have had, but I don't feel sorry for them. No one would feel sorry for the Bombers in the same situation. But I feel no overt need to throw it in their faces unless a fan fires the first shot directly at me (and to my face, not over a message board). But I find it sillier that people feel the need to be bothered by how supportive the Rider fans are, both at home and on the road, and the fact that the media comments on it, and the massive need to say "that's a lie!", or "it just gets soooo annoying" when the most ardent Bomber fans do EXACTLY the same thing, like it's OK for us to do it, but a crime for another fan base to. The perception of a strong Rider national fan base is not inaccurate - come to any Banjo Bowl and see how well their fans travel. This is just my opinion, but it smacks of sour grapes and a massive inferiority complex, like it takes away from how good Bomber fans are if we don't get the same props, or if another team gets any credit. And it is so predictable around here, when we do well we can revel in their failure, but when we have a struggling team that we can't puff our chests out about, we revert to the "well they suck too" and "they are in your face about it (like we aren't?). Just funny how childish it seems, and to me, this petty attitude and classlessness DOES reflect badly on our fanbase (and I don't expect anyone to adopt that last line of thinking). I am sure I am overreacting to most, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I don't need to tear down other anonymous people to make me feel better about myself - I don't want to give that kind power to others to determine my life happiness, especially fans of a competing sports team. Anyway, just my observation and opinion, no Rider flag waving intended.

I see that this thread has gone from the shcadenfreude of MBBers reveling in the troubles of an 0-7 Rider squad that lost it's #1 and #2 QBs back to the insecure sour grapes of trying to convince everyone about the "myth" that is the national reach of Rider nation. Bombers must be on a losing streak with QB troubles of their own.

I'm thinking the foul language self-censor on this site is a bit hit and miss.

Well, that's cleared up my voting option nicely. ;-)

Not to mention Washington's great recovery in the endzone in knocking the ball away from the receiver. Reminded me of how school yard football was played. Still unclear why Dunigan thought that was pass interference . . . Not sure if the replays truly showed how good that recovery was. He stumbled badly when the receiver made the cut in the end zone and the ball was already in the air. From the stands I said "6 points right there". His closing speed after he got his feet under him was pretty spectacular.

Lulay calls a lot of audibles and with the crowd noise that just wasn't going to work very well. Which makes the hurry up more confusing to me. Seemed like they wanted to not let the crowd reset, but it didn't work, and was obvious it wasn't working from the beginning. I got the sense it was more to keep the Bombers from changing personnel than to combat the noise. They went back to it when Hurl was out with equipment issues and Bass was hurt for that short spell. They found a way to keep them both off the field. But Lulay's passing accuracy took a hit after that first drive, and the secondary tightened up. that as much as anything changed the tempo of the game.

I am sure Jimi was back stage thinking "man how am I going to follow that?" Totally. He was like "Man, can't top that. Might as well just pack it in and burn my guitar"

Missed last night's game. Am I barred from making the other 3 picks? Seems so. If not, and it's just a glitch, I'll take Edmonton, Calgary and Hamilton.

Forgot about this until after the Bomber game started. if I can still pick from another game, I'll take Adarius Bowman. If not, I'm at 4 strikes already, so not like my stay of execution would have lasted long anyway.

Replace Cato with Troy Smith... Let's give it some time before we annoint Cato. Lots of guys have looked good initially but not been able to sustain it. I'll throw Casey Printers Joey Elliott in as another guy who had early success and wasn't able to keep it going. FIFY

That's my point. "Better than Brink" did not equal "good QB", just like "Marve is better than Brohm" does not mean "Marve should be starting because he's so good". Many who want rid of Brohm think that Marve will come in and light it up, but like Elliot he could quite easily stink it up, and the coaches must believe that is the case based on not playing him and explaining how he is deficient in the areas they need him to be stronger in. Elliot's riskiness was not just riverboat gambler mentality, it was a fundamental inability to read the defence and exploit it. That was proven by the lack of success on any other team that took a chance on him afterwards. He was not a good QB, and "better than Brink" was such a low bar that people falsely elevated his ability to play because of it and pinned unrealistic expectations on him. I fear the same scenario with Marve now.

Two very good back-to-back posts gcn. I think you are bang on on both. This smacks of the Alex Brink/Joey Elliot situation three years ago (how soon we forget). Everyone hated Brink (with reason - he couldn't perform) and clamored for Elliot, then all the fan boys got their wish and Elliot started - and was competent for one game, sub-par by 2 once defences had tape on him, and had us begging for option #4 (or Buck's return) shortly thereafter. The Brohm situation needs to be separated from the Marve equation. Brohm is struggling mightily on the most basic stuff, namely getting the ball to the receiver on less than one hop. Mechanics? Confidence? The simple inability to throw a pass? I find it impossible to believe that he never had the skill in the first place, he's been around pro football for a decade, including the NFL. I saw him between plays in Edmonton actually pantomime the drop back and release motion before getting into the huddle, which I've never seen in a game before by a QB. Something is off in his head, and it was like he was trying to re-gain his muscle memory, much like a golfer after an errant swing or in his pre-shot routine. Got to think a lot of this is mental, and the constant chirping about Marve being better from the media and the chattering masses on this board, as well as being booed after one series at home has got to get to him, no matter how thick-skinned he is. Not sure he can re-gain that confidence again, or if the fan base will even give him that chance. Anyone want to give me odds on a bet that he will get booed in the first offensive drive BEFORE the first down pass - that is when he takes the field to start the first drive? 3:1? 2:1? Even money? I won't disagree that right now Marve couldn't be worse, but those who are waiting for a savior in him are most likely in for a rude awakening a la Elliot. The message from the team has been consistent (no need for conspiracy theories) - he doesn't follow the system (spare me the "it's because the system sucks" line - Willy seems to be doing more than well enough in it when he's not getting knocked out of games), and free lances way too much, doesn't go through progressions, and is so run-first mentality that he will be too easy to defend once teams figure that out and spy him with a linebacker and force him to beat them with his arm. The coaches clearly believe he is not ready yet, and Elliot is a great example on this very team how rushing a player into action because he "looks" better than option number 2 to the fans can be a recipe for disaster. I can hear people saying "Who is to say that Marve is bound to fail anyway? He's shown more and just needs that chance." OK, but clearly the coaches don't see it that way (and I'll still trust their judgment over a bunch of internet armchair QBs who have seen nothing but scrub-time action against prevent defences in Marve's case), and history has seen more examples of one-game wonders who flame out when pushed too quickly than those who instantly rise up and become stars out of nowhere. Patience among the fans has been exhausted by the 25 years of losing, and we are all praying for the next Ricky Ray/Rakeem Cato/Bo Levi Mitchell diamond in the rough, but sorry folks more patience is required. If you are out of patience right now, then you might as well turn in your tickets and stop visiting this board until the team is a solid contender again. See you in a couple of years if that is the case. I suspect the coaches are hoping that Brohm can get his head back into it and find that confidence again, at least enough to tread water, and that Marve and his skill set of stronger arm and better feet can pick up the mental stuff sooner than later. Actually I'm sure they are praying that Willy can play, and then the other stuff can be put off until it fixes itself over time, or adequate replacements can be made.

Garza. Sammy ******* Garza. Was that the son in law? You guys aren't even scratching the surface. Mark Jackson (back-up to Deiter Brock) Troy Kopp (minus 30 minutes vs Saskatchewan) Stefan LeFors Keithan McCant and the two biggies: T J Rubley Tee Martin

You don't……..and yet there will be 50 or so posts with variations on "Brohm sucks", "fire O'Shea/Bellefeuille/Hall/Walters", "Hurl needs to go", "Marve is our saviour", "you guys are just negatrons", "positrons are deluded", "blow it up and re-build", "we can't blow up again, give it time" (did I miss anything?) in the next 24 hours, all of it in CAPS LOCK YELLING. I'm going to enjoy my Sunday instead. The problems will still be there on Monday, but maybe the emotions will have cooled enough by then.

Maybe everyone should take 24 hours away from posting here and start with the deep analysis on Monday.

Fair enough, and that's great if it works. Always nice to be the genius who thinks outside the box and challenges the status quo - if the results are there. Sadly, the past recent history of the Bombers is that when they get guys in player personnel who march to the beat of their own drummer (Reinbold, Mack) and don't care what anyone else thinks about what is the right way to do things, their contrarian way of doing things has proven disasterous for the franchise.

If that's the case then all the more important to load up the box to stuff the run and force Nicholls to beat you with his arm. If he is Edmonton's best weapon, you have a real chance to beat them. Rain will only hurt his cause.

Bingo. One other possible weakness might be fatigue (if Nicholls plays down to his usual sub-par back-up QB form), or so we hope.

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line. No I'm not self-employed and I think that you seem to have missed what I was talking about. I'm not talking about the day to day stuff that every employee, management or otherwise, has to put up with. I'm talking about the core stuff that one does. If I'm hired to do a job and then I have a boss who wants to spend his time telling me how to do it, he and I would (and this has happened) have a conversation about why I was hired and what my expectations are for my job. If we can't come to a satisfactory understanding, then yes, it's time to move on. Fortunately, I've found that in most cases, if you show your superiors that yes, you do know your stuff and if you make sure that you keep them "in the loop" they tend to step back and let you do your thing. If not, then why in the world would someone stay where they really aren't respected or appreciated. I hear you and understand that viewpoint, so let's take it back to Taman's scenario. You get hired to manage a company. You have a boss (let's call him a CEO or "president") who is in control of the money, answers to shareholders, and wants a successful, profitable enterprise. You are in to be put in charge of the day-to-day stuff. You are given a budget to work with that is smaller and more restrictive than you would like, but the president says I can find another manager if you don't like the set-up, there are plenty of people looking to be managers and only 7 other companies like this one. You have grown up your whole adult life around this business and worked your way up to become a manager - do you turn this chance down on the principle that you have to make certain concessions to this president? You are in charge of hiring the new workers and assembling a "team" that can make your company successful and profitable. However, there are foremen (let's call them "coaches") who were already hired before you came in, and were hand-picked by the "president". You as the manager make sure the operation runs smoothly, the foreman oversees the workers directly. Your concession is that you have to accept the existing foremen and can't overhaul the whole staff yourself right away, but you are in charge of them. Not a problem because you actually work well with the foremen, and they have done a good job so far. Now fast forward a few years and the company has taken a hit, and the shareholders are angry. The president tells you he is pleased with your work, but hears about problems between the foremen and the workers, and recognizes that a culture change needs to happen. Calls you in and says that the foremen need to go because if nothing happens the shareholders pull out and the company collapses. You think the foremen can salvage the job, plus you have always had a good working relationship with them, but you know that the problems exist and status quo will not be acceptable to your higher ups. The president tells you point blank to fire the foremen and hire a new staff of your own choosing, and if you don't like it, we'll fire you instead, and then find a new manager who will fire the foremen. Remember that this isn't some McJob, this is your career and this ouster will follow you for the rest of your life in any future job interview. Do you really say "take a hike" on principle, knowing that every future job you apply for, the first thing your new prospective bosses will note is your defiance of authority? Or do you fire the guy who wasn't your pick anyway in the first place, bite your lip, and get on with your job? (Remember that Taman didn't run around yelling overtly about how his hands were tied, he used diplomacy and code-speak when everyone in the media knew anyway it was Bauer who pulled the trigger). Finally, Taman in the end did exactly what you suggest he should do if unsatisfied, which is walk away. When Kelly came in, Taman knew he could no longer accept his changed and diminished role, and opted out. He was willing to accept the job that was originally offered to him, but when the rules changed around him again and again, he adapted until he no longer could tolerate it, and then he stepped away. Hardly the back-stabbing, save my own hide to secure my survival coward that has been suggested by some. But I respect your point of view and was happy to engage in a thoughtful debate about it. I just think that it isn't so black and white in the real world that you can talk in absolutes like "if I disagree with my boss I tell them to take a hike, and if I lose my job, so be it - unlike Brendan Taman who would rather be a lap dog". Sorry if the "liar" tag came across as harsh, was trying for humour. (I thought Airplane! was always your go-to if you wanted to lighten the mood).

No, I don't know you, so let me ask - do you have a boss, or are you truly self-employed? If you've ever worked for a boss, you do what they ask you to do. Ever work late, through lunch, cover for someone else who is sick, get handed a project with a deadline you know can't be met without cutting corners somewhere? And you'd say no every time to any of that? Enjoy the unemployment line.