Well that loss stung last night. Not happy with the decision to kick the FG but that can be discussed elsewhere  All in all there was a lot of improvement this year over last year and looking like they are trending upwards. If Walters can pull off another great draft and some more key FAs this offseason I like our chances going into 2017. Who is on the FA watch list and what areas are we in desperate need of fixing?

Incremental improvements, whenever and however you can. That should be the Bombers goal each and every day.

 

14 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Context is also 'coming off achilles injury'...

right but, it's not like we sign him and he's 100% going to be on the team. What are the options at CND Rec right now? You'd rather old man Getztlaf? No one is suggesting the bombers sign him for $240,000. There is zero harm in bringing him in and letting him compete.

36 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Watt would be nice. I also like vaughan. Wouldnt mind having him case one of our 2nd year guys take a step back. 

Imop watt would be the better WR while JFG the better teams, blocker etc. 

I've always been curious...what does the P stand for in IMOP? I know IMO = In My Opinion, but what's the P for?

Just now, Noeller said:

I've always been curious...what does the P stand for in IMOP? I know IMO = In My Opinion, but what's the P for?

Its purpose is to make you ask why  

19 minutes ago, Noeller said:

I've always been curious...what does the P stand for in IMOP? I know IMO = In My Opinion, but what's the P for?

Its a silent P, like in swimming...

Watt is worth a look. People say don't sign him but are happy with Richards who has done less than Jade his first two years and Coates who in his career has less yards than Watt last year?

Just now, rebusrankin said:

Watt is worth a look. People say don't sign him but are happy with Richards who has done less than Jade his first two years and Coates who in his career has less yards than Watt last year?

Well, potential plays into it, of course.  Richards and Coates are 23 and 25.  You probably wouldn't say we should re-sign Jeff Keeping because he has way more starts than Michael Couture.

Just now, Atomic said:

Well, potential plays into it, of course.  Richards and Coates are 23 and 25.  You probably wouldn't say we should re-sign Jeff Keeping because he has way more starts than Michael Couture.

Oh, I like Richards potential and hope he breaks out. Just saying can't always hope it happens. Coates, I don't see the upside.

11 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Well, potential plays into it, of course.  Richards and Coates are 23 and 25.  You probably wouldn't say we should re-sign Jeff Keeping because he has way more starts than Michael Couture.

I think the argument against would be Richards up side plus JFG for a steady guy means we dont need watt. But with cfl vet deals not being guaranteed and watt not being a guy whose gonna get a monster bonus to come the cost difference is moot. We arent in a position even with watt of having too much competition at a spot (see montreal and qbs last year) and its our lowest production spot so certainly a push would be good. I think richards needs a big push this year any way. 

Is anyone else thrilled by the fact that we're this close to training camp and the most contentious issue is who our 5th receiver is going to be?

I see zero downside to bringing in any NAT WR/SB until we find one that can play and produce. Do we need Watt..nope,,,would he be a bad signing? Absolutely not.

5 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

I think the argument against would be Richards up side plus JFG for a steady guy means we dont need watt. But with cfl vet deals not being guaranteed and watt not being a guy whose gonna get a monster bonus to come the cost difference is moot. We arent in a position even with watt of having too much competition at a spot (see montreal and qbs last year) and its our lowest production spot so certainly a push would be good. I think richards needs a big push this year any way. 

Well Richards has barely been able to play and is again returning from significant surgeries.  We probably need to have 2 NI receivers on the roster to fulfill the one starting spot, otherwise you're looking at making a ratio change on the OL or playing Normand every down if there's an in-game injury.  We only have 3 to choose from as of today, plus 2017 picks (pick really as BTP is not really a receiver prospect).  Also a bit of a reach to think that whoever makes the team lasts all 18 games, chances are we'll end up dressing 3-4 by the end of the year.  IMO they need to add someone for training camp and if they don't will more than likely need to add someone during the season.

5 hours ago, BBlink said:

Watt would be a decent pickup. Don't think his salary demands would be outrageous. 

Apparently salary was one of the reasons he was let go in Hamilton.

10 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Is anyone else thrilled by the fact that we're this close to training camp and the most contentious issue is who our 5th receiver is going to be?

I think the question mark at MLB might be a little more contentious, but yes, it is awesome that we are no longer worried about if we have enough starters, rather that we are going to have to make some decisions about backups who may be too good to be backups...

19 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Apparently salary was one of the reasons he was let go in Hamilton.

His salary, yes, that makes sense, but not necessarily his salary demands. He was signed two years ago, coming off a big year in Toronto. It makes sense his contract was big. Then he got hurt and had low production last year.

If I were the Ti-Cats, I wouldn't be excited to pay him what he was worth two years ago when he signed as a FA.

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Apparently salary was one of the reasons he was let go in Hamilton.

Because Hamilton didn't want to pay him one. 

1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

Watt is worth a look. People say don't sign him but are happy with Richards who has done less than Jade his first two years and Coates who in his career has less yards than Watt last year?

I'd love to see another NI Rec in camp... but again a 28 year old REC with bad knees and ACL surgery is not that guy

 

2 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'd love to see another NI Rec in camp... but again a 28 year old REC with bad knees and ACL surgery is not that guy

 

Exactly, better options could present themselves once teams begin to cut down their rosters after TC.

18 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'd love to see another NI Rec in camp... but again a 28 year old REC with bad knees and ACL surgery is not that guy

Why do you hate Spencer Watt so much?  I find him electrifying

12 minutes ago, Floyd said:

I'd love to see another NI Rec in camp... but again a 28 year old REC with bad knees and ACL surgery is not that guy

 

If you define him by his age and injury history... But if you can get him on a "last chance in football" contract it's probably worth the "chance".

You have the incumbent, the high draft pick, the safe depth guy. Why not go for the home run? At worst you cut him in training camp. At best he's better than JFG.

Besides, who else is out there?

15 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Exactly, better options could present themselves once teams begin to cut down their rosters after TC.

Sure. So you cross that bridge when you get there. Waiting and hoping is not a great strategy for a CFL GM

2 minutes ago, BBlink said:

Sure. So you cross that bridge when you get there. Waiting and hoping is not a great strategy for a CFL GM

Also nothing stopping us from cutting Watt after TC and picking up one of these awesome Canadian players that other teams are cutting for some reason

10 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Why do you hate Spencer Watt so much?  I find him electrifying

Ha!  I'm all amped up by the current talk about Watt

4 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Ha!  I'm all amped up by the current talk about Watt

He's only electrifying when he runs the right circuit.

51 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Why do you hate Spencer Watt so much?  I find him electrifying

I feel like he's a flash in the pan.