TrueBlue4ever

Interesting reading and insights. Thanks for the link.

Ok, if this article is in any way indicative of the kind of overreactioary “love you, hate you” bullshit Fajardo has had to deal with from the Saskatchewan media and fan base, then his press conference was a decidedly reserved, restrained , and polite performance. I’ve seen some bad stuff from 3Down, but this is on another level.

My too-soon knee-jerk reactions based on just the jersey and not the whole uniform: Anaheim - the black and orange actually makes this look better than the original green and purple ones. Decent. Arizona - Yuk Boston - The white on brown looks super sharp, and makes the bear much more menacing than the original yellow background did. Small gold accents and the uneven bottom striping make this a big win for me. This is the best of the bunch IMO. Buffalo - At least they didn’t go with the “Buffaslug” logo. Nothing special, but not terrible. Calgary - Problem with the Flames is that they have changed their uniform so many times nothing really feels “retro”, but black is safe. May have been better served with the flaming horse logo with this colour and striping scheme. Just looks like a jersey they already did and not a fresh take. Carolina - Meh. Chicago - as offensive as some find it, the Indian Head logo really works, so this is a let down. Maybe they should have thought outside the box and put Belfour’s “Eagle” logo on the front, or a Hawk. Colorado - Simple, but not bad. Not wow either. Columbus - looks like they slapped a Blue Jackets logo on an old Atlanta Thrashers jersey and took out the yellow. Points for going with a black base instead of dark blue, though. The pants and socks colour could make this very good or a big miss. Dallas - should have gone current logo and colours with the old star shaped striping. If they have black pants it will be too dark. Detroit - only so much you can do with two colours. Black pants and red socks with striping may save this one. Edmonton - the orange makes this a better attempt than the first go-round at the oil drop and cogs jersey, but still not a fan. Florida - my first thought was “baby blue? Ugh”, but coming back to it after a few minutes, it is now growing on me. Nice to incorporate the shoulder crest as the main logo, and the decision to have a separate shoulder and cuffs instead of the line all the way down the arm was a smart one. Don’t mind this one at all. Los Angeles - once again they show the other teams how it is done. Old style crown, white base instead of the original yellow is a huge win. Another home run for the Kings. Minnesota - It’s fine, but after last year this feels exactly the same with the road colours swapped in, so underwhelmed, even though last year’s was a big win, so why fix what ain’t broken. Now, if they go black pants with stars down the side like the old North Star uni, then a massive win. Montreal - their uniform has never really changed radically, so hard to find anything “retro” about them. And going baby blue is not retro to me. They are hurt by a lack of options. Nashville - Zero originality here, they win the “NY Islander” award this year for not even trying. But wait, the pants and socks will be gold too! Sheer stupidity on that front. Skating bananas are never a good look. New Jersey - At least they are trying to honour the concept of “reverse retro” with the old Rockies colours. But that crest is so limiting. Maybe a nod to the Kansas City Scouts is next? Kind of dull. NY Rangers - it’s a cool logo, but this is hardly an original idea. Too many fans will have a close-enough version of this jersey to not care. Different shoulder and arm striping would have been an upgrade. NY Islanders - I heard “fisherman logo” and thought “dear God, no!”, and yet, I don’t hate it. The minimalist use of the powder blue and simple striping was a safe and better choice. Ottawa - Is this even a new jersey, or just leftovers they never sold before? Boring. Philadelphia - sometimes you should just not mess with a classic. Removing orange from their uniform does not work. This registers as a fail for me. Pittsburgh - don’t mind the clean bird logo, and the striping is fine, but this doesn’t feel “original” to me as a concept. Decent enough I suppose, but not a “wow” look. St. Louis - points for originality, and the logo and old style music note scream “retro”, but I’ve not often been a big fan of yellow jerseys. Maybe the whole kit with blue pants will work. Holding out on this one for now. San Jose - the Golden Seals folded for many reasons, one of which may have been their terrible uniforms. Re-creating it for the Sharks isn’t going to make it better. Retro? Yes. Doesn’t mean it was a good idea. Maybe slapping the current logo or the fin logo instead of a word mark would have impressed me more. Seattle - a second year franchise has nothing retro, so it is limiting but can also be freeing. You are not bound by any past constraints and can basically make a fresh 3rd jersey. If this is the best they could think up, I’m a bit underwhelmed. Tampa Bay - when they debuted this as a third jersey in blue many years back, the consensus was “too busy, trying too hard to put too much into it” and they were right. But as a retro, the kitschiness of it kind of works now. Plus, getting black back into that uniform is a step up from their dull current unis. Stiil, the mini rain streaks are a bit much. A pass, but closer to a C than an A. EDIT: Just got a closer look at it, with yellow lightning bolts on the arms and jagged numbers, with multi-coloured waves. Put me now solidly in the “really like this” camp. Toronto - again, these original 6 teams for some reason are more limited in their options than the newer teams, which seems counter-intuitive given their tenure. Maybe fans just can’t shake the “classic” image and so they play it safe. But this is nothing special. Only Boston really thought creatively, and only they produced a winner for me. Vancouver - Blue and green should never be seen. And Johnny Canuck is a stupid logo. The jersey number on the front when you have next to it on the shoulder is really dumb. Total fail, especially with the options of the skate logo, black, gold, and orange, or even the killer whale logo. Vegas - OK, so like Seattle this team is too young to have anything “retro”, but this is a respectable entry, with the old style font on the front. Another OK but not “wow” entry. Washington - a true retro concept of this look, logo, and striping in the blue and red colour scheme would have been a smarter choice for me. Keeps me from really liking this too much. Winnipeg - better than the last one, at least. And I know they want a nod to the past while keeping things (especially the current colour scheme) in the present, but red really makes the jerseys pop more. Maybe the old colours and striping of the 90’s jersey with the current logo would work better, or if they really love the light blue so much, create a new logo version of the old Thrasher jersey. Even a red plane and circle on the logo with everything else the same would have been an upgrade for me. I won’t be purchasing one.

Would have loved for her to have responded when the moderator said “we’ll fact check this” to cite her source right there and then, and when he asks the crowd what they “believe” to say “what you believe is dangerous and misleading if it’s a lie. You should believe in facts, not feelings”.

I know the Rider hatred is automatic to be able to post here, but some of you are trying way too hard to spin this as sucky behaviour from Fajardo. Literally the first thing he says in the clip is “it’s not going to stop me from supporting the guys, grinding in workouts and watching film”. He backs it up at the 1:25 mark saying he’s there to help Fine any way he can. If he had gone stone-faced like Mitchell (or Troy Westwood’s “sitting bull” act like Speed has referenced in the past when he was benched and spent the game arms folded on the sidelines) many here would just as quickly dump on him for sulking and not being a team guy. He stood up to the media, answered THEIR questions completely, professionally, and didn’t offer too many canned cliches while speaking honestly. He may be a lesser QB, but for a guy who just lost a job and then had to go and pretend he’s OK with that in front of the world, I didn’t see a whiner attitude or phony platitudes. Somewhat refreshing in the light of today’s cliche ridden athlete. I give him credit for that much. JMO.

The 3 Down report says in year 3 that $250,000 of his $500,000 base is guaranteed. So it is admittedly an assumption on my part that his base is consistent for all 3 seasons, which leaves $300,000. Would make sense if they are tapping into this year’s reserves that he gets up front money.

FIFY.

Just follow Mike’s unending erection.

Three thoughts: 1. A $300,000 signing bonus, so he actually comes in cheaper cap-wise than his current contract. 2. The “guaranteed money” part of the CBA is a huge positive development for the league. Players now willing to sign longer term, continuity for the club and the fans. Good article here: https://3downnation.com/2022/10/18/zach-collaros-kyle-walters-agree-partially-guaranteed-contracts-will-help-cfl-build-roster-continuity/ And for anyone worried about having to pay a 37 year old $250,000, Bombers can make that back by selling 1,100 “Collaros” jerseys in the next 3 seasons. Now that I don’t need to worry about replacing it for a while, I am in. 3. The conspiracy theorist on me loves the timing of this. Do it on an off-week to keep the vibes positive without being a distraction for next game prep, and also a nice reminder to all the writers hemming and hawing about the Rourke/Collaros MOP debate what Zach’s numbers are and how deserving he is of being the highest paid player in the league. A nice reset for the conversation.

Sounds like Rod may be preparing to do some backpedaling, or some “out of context” justification (“I was talking about the trade to Regina, or the trade to Toronto, not the trade to Winnipeg”).

Me to Rod right now:

That’s curious. I’m surprised teams have not abused that loophole to cheat the cap and load up for certain seasons.

There was nothing subtle about it. If there was a Ring of Honour for bad takes, Pedersen would be up there for this one, along with a bunch of Bomber fans when the trade went down. I’m not sure anyone, even those excited by the trade when it went down, could have imagined it would have worked out this well for the club or Zach three years in. Does the salary cap really work that way? Can you borrow from cap savings one year to apply to future years without penalty? Or a singing bonus is not part of the AAV?

Could be worse. Vancouver has blown 3 multi-goal leads already this year and held a player’s only meeting after their loss tonight, one week into the season.

No problem. Did not mean to detract from your question. I too would love to understand the “intent” behind this rule. Not sure O’Shea will know (although has he been a part of the rules committee at some point?) but it would be nice if the league office had a way to “ask the ref” on the website to clear up curious calls.

It absolutely is an illegal kick. Here are some video examples from the NFL (yes the rule is the same there and in amateur football). Now if you want to know WHY that penalty exists, I have not found a clear answer as to the intent of the rule, and most people either think this is a genius play or the stupidest rule on the hook.

I’m not one of those who believes that officials are biased against a certain team, that they are nowhere near as bad as the game day threads fans say they are, or that the command centre is getting it wrong the majority of the time. However, this meme was too funny not to post (came from a Twitter question by Lucky Whitehead of who actually operates the command centre - the first response was “probably someone from Winnipeg this season, they seem to get away with quite a bit”). So enjoy, the mystery has been solved.

A few rebound control issues.

Week 20 update: this week’s playoff clinching scenarios (assuming no ties)- Winnipeg: Clinched 1st in the West. BC: Clinched a West playoff spot. Can clinch 2nd with a win OR a Calgary loss. Calgary: Clinched a West playoff spot. Need to win both their remaining games AND have BC lose both their remaining games to clinch 2nd (barring any ties). Saskatchewan: Will finish 4th in the West. Will be eliminated from playoff contention with a loss AND a Hamilton win. Need wins and Hamilton losses totalling 3, AND wins and Ottawa losses totalling 1, to clinch a crossover spot. Edmonton: Will finish 5th in the West. Eliminated from playoff contention. There are no East crossover possibilities. Toronto: Clinched 2nd in the East and a home playoff game. Can clinch 1st in the East with a win or a tie. Montreal: Clinched 2nd in the East and a home playoff game. Need to win both remaining games against Toronto to clinch 1st. Hamilton: Can finish no better than 3rd in the East. Can clinch 3rd with a win and can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Saskatchewan loss. Ottawa: Can finish no better than 3rd in the East. Need to win both games against Hamilton to finish 3rd, and also need Saskatchewan to lose both of their remaining g games to make the playoffs. Will be eliminated from the playoffs with a loss OR a Saskatchewan win.

So the person I have contact with is a senior official in amateur football covering Ontario at various levels from high school to junior and CIS for decades. He cannot speak specifically to the CFL rule but says the amateur rule book defines a kickoff as a “ball in flight” until someone in the field of play touches it, and not a “loose ball”. For it to be a loose ball it would have required some sort of prior possession. Therefore if a ball in flight touches anything out of bounds, the ball itself is declared out of bounds. He acknowledges that this is a weird situation, and cannot say what the intent is behind the rule allowing a player to be out of bounds and field a kickoff that lands in bounds, only that this is not the same as touching a “loose ball” (like a fumbled ball) while out of bounds, which would be illegal participation.

If you’d have only stuck with Schoen and Demski, we’d have a winner and someone complaining that 2-point conversions should be considered as a correct pick as it is the same scoring requirement (possession in the end zone) as a TD. (OK, it is me complaining that this is how the rule should be, since I had this happen to my picks 3 times last year).

I don’t disagree with you that this seems inconsistent, especially when his deliberate intent seems clear here. I am looking into a possible explanation as to why the rule is the way it is, hopefully my source can give me a coherent answer.

They do know the rules. On a kickoff the receiving player can step out of bounds, stay out of bounds, and field the ball in bounds and it is considered an illegal kickoff. Illegal participation is where a player goes out of bounds without being forced out and re-enters the field of play to play the ball. Here the BC player deliberately stepped out of bounds and fielded the ball, which makes the ball out of bounds.

lol