TrueBlue4ever

I'd say I respectfully disagree, but I'm having a hard time respecting your comment. Read the article, Carter engaged with the fans before the game to show appreciation for their support of him, delivered the ball after his TD, and only because the mom requested it did he sign the ball and pose for a picture. This was not at all him looking for a photo op. The pictures were takem by the mom for her daughter and posted by the mom on her own social media account and it was picked up by 3downnation, hence the article. None of this was instigated by carter as a PR move, just a nice gesture to a young fan, whose cancer angle gets played up by the media in their feel good story. To suggest that he is burnishing his own ego by manipulating a cancer survivor is a pretty loathsome comment to make.

Week 6 haikus:
Don't beat the traffic.
This year CFL stands for
Crazy Football League!
 
Wpg. v. Mtl. -
Blue's winning game plan:
Keep the defence off the field
With great onside kicks
 
Edm. v. BC-
Who needs Sominex?
Another coach's challenge
Will put me to sleep.
 
Sask. v. Tor.-
Fans aren't the only
Nauseating thing in Sask.
Add Duron's sick catch.
 
Cal. v. Ham. -
PETA cries cruelty
over Stamps abuse of 'Cats
and touchdown horse run.
 

Week 6 haikus:
Don't beat the traffic.
This year CFL stands for
Crazy Football League!
 
Wpg. v. Mtl. -
Blue's winning game plan:
Keep the defence off the field
With great onside kicks
 
Edm. v. BC-
Who needs Sominex?
Another coach's challenge
Will put me to sleep.
 
Sask. v. Tor.-
Fans aren't the only
Nauseating thing in Sask.
Add Duron's sick catch.
 
Cal. v. Ham. -
PETA cries cruelty
over Stamps abuse of 'Cats
and touchdown horse run.
 

And just to rub salt in my wound, Madu doesn't play as a starter in either game and doesn't see the ball until a late 2 point convert, which counts for SFA even though it's akin to scoring a TD, just 4 points fewer.

And Tragically Hip concerts.

Meanwhile, Harper does this:

(That's actually a gif - Harper's actually that stiff in a moving picture).

And Tragically Hip concerts.

Meanwhile, Harper does this:

(That's actually a gif - Harper's actually that stiff in a moving picture).

Oops. totally missed that last sentence. And Powell is back from injury so Madu didn't even play. This contest sucks, the world is against me, I hate everyone!

Oops. totally missed that last sentence. And Powell is back from injury so Madu didn't even play. This contest sucks, the world is against me, I hate everyone!

Oops. totally missed that last sentence. And Powell is back from injury so Madu didn't even play. This contest sucks, the world is against me, I hate everyone!

Well that sucks. 

So here's my dilemma for picking this game. Ray seems to have re-discovered the magic he had 3 years or so ago, and he has lit up the Bombers so many times in the past I can't count. SJ Green will be going up against Carmichael according to the pre-game reports - is there a bigger mis-match on paper right now in the entire league for receiver/DB match-ups? Richie Hall's defence is "rush 3 or 4, almost no blitzes, give the other team short stuff and let them dink and dunk until they mess up" rather than "pressure but risk the big play". Is there a better QB at taking advantage of the conservative defence in the last 15 years in the CFL than Ricky Ray? And add Mark Trestman to that equation, and that's a scary game plan we may have going on tonight. And the Argo receiving injury is offset by the absence of Wild and Okpalaugo. Hurl and Knox at LB does not give me the warm fuzzies. Am I wrong to think that their offense is set up really well against our defence tonight? And if we need to rely on turnovers to win like all of last year, Ray is pretty good at protecting things.
Now I think Nicholls and our weapons can match Ray offensively, but that front 7 of Toronto looked pretty awesome against Hamilton (really impressive stunts and schemes by their coaches), and we saw what a pressured Nicholls did last week against Calgary (and for half the game against Sask), so how our o-line dictates the play seems to be the key to everything, especially getting as big run game from Harris to burn the clock. And do we need to see a 7/7 field goal game from Medlock to win?
So my analysis is lots of doom and gloom from a match-ups perspective - here's the big question:
How much will a very short week hurt Toronto? Play Saturday on the road, probably weren't home until early Sunday morning, day off Sunday, Monday film day, doubtful they practiced much if at all, Tuesday practice, Wednesday travel to Winnipeg per league mandate to get in 24 hours in advance, limited practice I'd speculate, game day Thursday which allows for walk through only. So unless I'm way off on a weekly football schedule, maybe only one real practice day to prep. No?
So despite there being no real home advantage here (seriously, 11-26 since this place opened?), is the short week the great equalizer that cancels out all the other factors?
Help me out here, trying to decide my pick for the CFL pool I'm in, and this is what I have for the breakdown. What am I missing, overestimating, or underestimating? Would prefer hard logical analysis, not blatant homerism or "sky is falling" negativity without some basis for your takes. thanks. 

Last year the success rate on one point converts was 91%. The two point convert was tried a total of 85 times, with 53 of them being successful, a 62.35% success rate. No team was worse than 50% (Wpg, Sask and Tor all went 2 for 4). Hamilton was the best at it, going 9 for 10. So even if the 1 point convert was 100% successful, it would make more sense to go for 2 every time, because statistically, you will score more points overall as long as the 2 point success rate stays above 50%.

But by that exact same logic, a team that goes 3/3 and wins by 2 points will say that going for it was the difference between winning and losing. The incorrect assumption is that the single point is automatic, when it no longer is (1 in 10 will miss), and you are giving away points by not taking the sure 1. Look at BC-Edmonton last week. Lions missed two 1 point converts and lost the game by 3. had they gone for 2 and made both (the stats say they have a better chance than not of getting them both) that's 4 extra points and they win the game instead of losing. So your "reality" argument cuts both ways. The numbers suggest that the reward would outweigh the risk over the long term, and that the "reality" is that more teams will benefit and win close games by going for it where the stats indicate a better than 50/50 chance of success than will lose games by taking that risk.
Now I'll easily concede that situational dynamics overrules everything, the point simply is that it isn't the overwhelming losing proposition some might believe it to be, and the single isn't the gimme it used to be. (NOTE: Justin Medlock does not approve this message). That's the whole point of the rule change.

Last year the success rate on one point converts was 91%. The two point convert was tried a total of 85 times, with 53 of them being successful, a 62.35% success rate. No team was worse than 50% (Wpg, Sask and Tor all went 2 for 4). Hamilton was the best at it, going 9 for 10. So even if the 1 point convert was 100% successful, it would make more sense to go for 2 every time, because statistically, you will score more points overall as long as the 2 point success rate stays above 50%.

I don't mind them. Something unique for Canada Day. Red and black goes well together. And they could be much worse.
 
 

That might actually be more productive than hanging out on here...

Are you saying 17to85 plays with himself?
 

I think they should still do at least three a year for the next few years. There are 87 years of history to go through, and it would be nice to get to some of the older players/coaches while they are still alive around to bask in the recognition. One a year and many would be deceased by the time you get to them. And I understand that this is a more rarified honour than the HOF induction, but still there are a number who could be saluted.
As an aside, wonder if there are specific criteria for induction. Since it is akin to a jersey retiring without actually taking the number out of circulation, it really needs to be saved for the best of the best (much more than the HOF honour). I always thought 3 defining requirements that were the starting point for consideration for inclusion would be:
A ) Must be a Blue Bomber for 10 seasons minimum (all current players/coach on the ring fit that requirement, but as you'll see from my suggestions for certain players below, that could exclude them, so maybe 7 is better - 5 seems low but even then that cuts out at least one very notable name)
B ) Preferable that their entire career was with the Bombers, but at the least was never traded by or walked away from the club to play elsewhere (rationale is that they were very special and the "lifelong" members of the team and community that deserve the greatest honour). By this criteria, Dieter Brock would not be on the Ring, so I guess the club is not as militant as I am. But I feel loyalty counts here. Just my opinion. Too harsh?
C ) Must have accomplished something extraordinary that would be recognized league-wide as a significant milestone, not just as a Blue Bomber notable (ex. Rick House had a Blue Bomber record consecutive games with a pass caught streak, and two 1,000 yard+ seasons, with one nomination for Outstanding Canadian, and was on the 75th anniversary all-time team, but no individual trophies or league records, so not Ring-worthy - also left for Edm. and did not play 10 years with the club, so....)
The 75th anniversary team picked the 20 greatest players, and certainly a few of them should be on the ring automatically. Seven of them (Walby, Stegall, Ploen, James, Gray, Brock, Lewis) already there, only Doug Brown - too young at that time, and Bud Grant - coach, made the ring but not that team. Of the other 13:
Suspected Locks:
Fritz Hanson - the original Bomber star in the 30's (played 7 seasons, so skirting by on my modified (A) criteria)
Jack Jacobs - carried the club in the 50's, got a stadium built (my notable name who would fail the (A) criteria as he only played 5 years)
Joe Poplawski - named a gate after the guy, would imagine the Ring is next. Put down roots here too, so that counts in his favour. Shorter 9 year career which made me reconsider my (A) tenure criteria, and he won a league award for Outstanding Canadian
James Murphy - Second-best receiver numbers-wise in Bomber history, 9 year career all in Blue and Gold, and league MVP. Checks off all my boxes.
Bob Cameron - The Bombers were his 8th team if you count training camps, but all stats are with Winnipeg, easily covers the 10 year rule, never traded, and a CFL record for career punting yards. It was him, Ploen, Lewis, Walby and Stegall I looked at when I created my criteria since they all easily fit the boxes and were the obvious choices. But for honouring the older generation of players from the 30's-60's first, he would be my next player inductee.
Frank Rigney - 11 years, 4 Grey Cups, 2 Outstanding Linemen awards and 3 all-star nominations in the glory days. The only downside is the anonymity of his position makes this a less obvious choice than it should be.
Strong Contenders:
Greg Battle - Almost a lock, but a gap in his 9 year tenure. Still, 2 defensive MOPs back-to-back and 2 Grey Cups. But do you think "Hall of Famer" or do you think "all-time legend whose number should never be worn again because we only associate him with it"?
Willard Reaves - A league star and owned this town in the mid-80's, league MOP and 3 time CFL all-star with his Grey Cup, but only 5 years with the club. Bonus points for staying here and finding a career in Wpg. after football.
Charles Roberts - Leading rusher all-time on the club, 82 TD's, 4 straight 1,500+ yard seasons, 7 straight CFL all-star nods. 7.5 years with the club. BUT....there is that 0.5 years with BC. His trade is the reason I came up with criteria (B). Also, the one league award he actually won was a more minor one (Outstanding special teamer). Maybe just sour grapes from his disruptive mid-season holdout and even more disruptive Grey Cup partying in 2001 which is as big a reason as any for costing us a "sure thing" win. Just not a lock for me. Character matters for the highest honour in Bomberland.
Fringe Contenders (the "if you let them in, where is the line/what's the difference between this and the Hall of Fame nod"):
Tom Casey - great RB in the 50's and stayed to become a doctor (actually went to med school with my dad), but "only" led the West in rushing once (not the entire league), and no CFL all-star nods (5 western selections). Overshadowed by teammates Jacobs, James, and Lewis.
Rick House - see my critique above in the (C) criteria. Certainly can't go in before Poplawski. Doesn't quite check off all the boxes for "legend" status.
Tom Clements - this hurts personally as he is my favorite Bomber QB, won a Grey Cup and league MOP to boot, but only put in 5 years with the club. Not enough tenure and doesn't match the Ploen or Jacobs "historical significance to the club" level.
Trevor Kennard - When you think legendary Bomber kickers, you start and end with Bob Cameron. If he still was the leading all-time scorer on the club, that would be something, but this (and for Troy Westwood too) is where the whole "must achieve something notable league-wide, not just with the Bombers" needs to be considered.
Finally (yeah, I write novels, what of it???) the other one who is on my short list is:
Cal Murphy - absolute lock, checks all the boxes for tenure, loyalty and league success, re-built the team as coach and GM in the 80's. 3 Cup rings. Winnipegger to boot. Get him up there NOW!  
Waffling on Mike Riley - can't ignore 2 Cups as head coach, only Bud Grant has more, and 2 coach of the year awards, but was his tenure long enough? Only 4 years as a head coach, left for greener NFL pastures - twice if you count his aborted departure in 1989, which actually strengthens his cred since the love of the city pulled him back, temporarily at least.
Also waffling on Ty Jones - again tenure related (5 years his first go-round, with 3 later years where he wasn't the same force), left Wpg. to play on 2 other teams to end his career, but his CFL success (2 Cups, defensive MOP, Grey Cup MOP and sack record, 4 time CFL all-star) and Bomber all-time sack record get him very close to "lock" status.
Any thoughts? Who did I miss?