Jump to content

Game Day Thread- Week Twenty one , GAME 18: Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Edmonton November 3rd, 2018


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Wow. Strong feelings. What exactly does Sanchez do to make you hate him that much? It almost sounds personal.

 It’s funny… I actually feel the exact opposite of you. I think Milt acts like a total **** on the panel. Helluva receiver, for sure.  But I really don’t care for him as a commentator. He talks incessantly and interrupts other people continuously. I mean, Hank gives his opinion on who the Bombers might prefer to face in the semi. Then Milt gets to give his opinion. Then when it’s Davis’ turn, Milt rudely over talks him. Why does Milt get a free pass to be a dink?

 He’s also not nearly as funny or clever as he thinks. It was like that when he was a player too. I just don’t care for the arrogance. Surprised, actually, that Davis didn’t punch him in the mouth. He deserves it. 

Sanchez is arrogant and he was a dirty player. Say what you will about Milt he was never a dirty player and Milt's bragging was classy and fun.

Here are some Sanchez quotes from when he was a player ...

"I guarantee you that if I was on that (Edmonton Eskimo) football team this year, that consecutive streak of playoffs would still be intact," said Sanchez. "That is because I make plays and I exude confidence. 

"Some of those games where they lost confidence (in Edmonton) in a streak where the team was struggling, someone like me would have made a difference, along with some other guys." 

"And you can say what you want about Davis Sanchez, but I have been in this league five or six years and how many games have you seen where the guy in front of me gets the better of me on the day? 

"It is not going to happen. Guys like that you need on your team." 

... and here's what a tool other players thought he was ... 

"I think he missed the last six games (for us) last year," said Garrett, "and we won the Grey Cup."

Ha! Yeah, I don't like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

Sanchez was a dirty player and some of us with longer memories recall his cheap shots against various Bombers including Milt.

Yeah first time I saw Milt and Sanchez on the same panel I wondered how it would go because Dirty Sanchez has taken more than a few absolutely cheap and dirty shots at Milt in their playing careers. Guys don't forget **** like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

3down  NOTES: Edmonton’s 9-9 mark is the best record not to make the playoffs since the crossover format was instituted back in 1996.

awwww, that's unfortunate.

Too bad McJesus couldn't play football as well.

Edited by HardCoreBlue
Add another shot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

That's why the CFL should be 1 division instead of East/West.

Eskimos miss the playoffs @ 9-9. Hammy gets a home playoff game at 8-10.

Single division -

Stamps and Riders get a bye.

Redblacks host the Esks

Bombers host the Leos

Als, Argos, Ticats miss the playoffs.

Toronto would never make the playoffs under your format.  The league can't have that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

That's why the CFL should be 1 division instead of East/West.

Eskimos miss the playoffs @ 9-9. Hammy gets a home playoff game at 8-10.

Single division -

Stamps and Riders get a bye.

Redblacks host the Esks

Bombers host the Leos

Als, Argos, Ticats miss the playoffs.

They like two divisions because it makes for important divisional games near the end of the year. Under a single division, the race this year wouldn't have been nearly as tight.

Not saying it's right - just I think that is their logic. Personally I think they should keep two divisions, but remove the one-team limitation for the crossover rule, that would mean this year both EDM and BC would make the playoffs crossing over through the East, and the worst of the three (HAM) would've been eliminated. I agree it's stupid for a sub-.500 team to host a playoff game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

They like two divisions because it makes for important divisional games near the end of the year. Under a single division, the race this year wouldn't have been nearly as tight.

Not saying it's right - just I think that is their logic. Personally I think they should keep two divisions, but remove the one-team limitation for the crossover rule, that would mean this year both EDM and BC would make the playoffs crossing over through the East, and the worst of the three (HAM) would've been eliminated. I agree it's stupid for a sub-.500 team to host a playoff game.

I like two divisions. It helps with geographic rivalries. Playing divisional rivals near the last half during regular season stimulates interest because play off races.    With the addition of a 5th squad in Halifax we would have balanced divisions. It was always maddening having poor Eastern Squads involved in post season when Western Squads went Christmas shopping. I think with the crossover format should be maintained if the league gets balanced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J5V said:

Sanchez is arrogant and he was a dirty player. Say what you will about Milt he was never a dirty player and Milt's bragging was classy and fun.

Here are some Sanchez quotes from when he was a player ...

"I guarantee you that if I was on that (Edmonton Eskimo) football team this year, that consecutive streak of playoffs would still be intact," said Sanchez. "That is because I make plays and I exude confidence. 

"Some of those games where they lost confidence (in Edmonton) in a streak where the team was struggling, someone like me would have made a difference, along with some other guys." 

"And you can say what you want about Davis Sanchez, but I have been in this league five or six years and how many games have you seen where the guy in front of me gets the better of me on the day? 

"It is not going to happen. Guys like that you need on your team." 

... and here's what a tool other players thought he was ... 

"I think he missed the last six games (for us) last year," said Garrett, "and we won the Grey Cup."

Ha! Yeah, I don't like him.

Yeah...k...Those are definitely ****** baggy, egomaniacal quotes.

Still, if we’re going into history, Milt always liked to talk about himself in the third person. As in, “Milt Stegall never shows up late…” Or “Milt Stegall isn’t thinking about the touchdown record…” My experience is that people who like to talk about themselves in the third person are also inevitably egomaniac, ****** bags. 

 Anyway, you’ve now explained why you do not like Davis Sanchez. Thanks.

At the end of the day, I think I still prefer him as a commentator to Milt  because of the way the two  men carry themselves in the present and - more specifically- what each brings to the table as a TSN commentator, both in style and substance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Yeah...k...Those are definitely ****** baggy, egomaniacal quotes.

Still, if we’re going into history, Milt always liked to talk about himself in the third person. As in, “Milt Stegall never shows up late…” Or “Milt Stegall isn’t thinking about the touchdown record…” My experience is that people who like to talk about themselves in the third person are also inevitably egomaniac, ****** bags. 

 Anyway, you’ve now explained why you do not like Davis Sanchez. Thanks.

At the end of the day, I think I still prefer him as a commentator to Milt  because of the way the two  men carry themselves in the present and - more specifically- what each brings to the table as a TSN commentator, both in style and substance. 

How is it that you know Milt Stegall's history so well but know nothing about Davis Sanchez?

People refer to themselves in third person to be funny. 

Amazing criteria you've got going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

At the end of the day, I think I still prefer him as a commentator to Milt  because of the way the two  men carry themselves in the present and - more specifically- what each brings to the table as a TSN commentator, both in style and substance. 

As a player, Milt was special in a way that Sanchez never was. The irony of pro sports is that Sanchez has three Grey Cup rings and Milt none. Talent-wise that should be reversed but oh well, that's sports. Yes they are both arrogant but I seriously doubt Sanchez could match Milt's work ethic and work ethic is something I have tremendous respect for.

About commentating, you may recall Milt was not very good when he first started. Neither is Sanchez. We'll see who becomes better. My money's on Milt.

Oh yes, and Sanchez has a great face for radio. That's why he hides it behind that scraggly beard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, J5V said:

As a player, Milt was special in a way that Sanchez never was. The irony of pro sports is that Sanchez has three Grey Cup rings and Milt none. Talent-wise that should be reversed but oh well, that's sports. Yes they are both arrogant but I seriously doubt Sanchez could match Milt's work ethic and work ethic is something I have tremendous respect for.

About commentating, you may recall Milt was not very good when he first started. Neither is Sanchez. We'll see who becomes better. My money's on Milt.

Oh yes, and Sanchez has a great face for radio. That's why he hides it behind that scraggly beard.

Sanchez was tough to like as a player. I thought he deserves the moniker, Dirty Sanchez. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mark H. said:

How is it that you know Milt Stegall's history so well but know nothing about Davis Sanchez?

People refer to themselves in third person to be funny. 

Amazing criteria you've got going on here.

Geez,  I guess you and I don’t agree… Imagine that? Two people having a different take on something as subjective as what constitutes funny...weird.

Anyway, I could agree with you, but then we would just both be wrong. 🤓

Edited by deepsixemtoboyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-11-04 at 3:37 PM, Eternal optimist said:

They like two divisions because it makes for important divisional games near the end of the year. Under a single division, the race this year wouldn't have been nearly as tight.

Not saying it's right - just I think that is their logic. Personally I think they should keep two divisions, but remove the one-team limitation for the crossover rule, that would mean this year both EDM and BC would make the playoffs crossing over through the East, and the worst of the three (HAM) would've been eliminated. I agree it's stupid for a sub-.500 team to host a playoff game.

But, in this alternative universe, Hamilton plays their starters against Montreal and likely wins and still makes the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Geez,  I guess you and I don’t agree… Imagine that? Two people having a different take on something as subjective as what constitutes funny...weird.

Anyway, I could agree with you, but then we would just both be wrong. 🤓

Totally cool with that. 

I just find your definition of class rather curious. It’s pretty easy to find out what Sanchez was like as a player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

My favorite was when he was talking about how much of a ratio breaker Lankford would be with his kicking....yeah...he said that...

idjut.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...