Whatever week this is - Non B2B Champs games

[SpeedFlex27]

4 minutes ago, Jesse said:

I wish nothing but the best for Rourke - he will hopefully be the face of the league for the next 15 years.

That said - it’s not his time yet.

Sorry but if Rourke isn't healed & he plays anyway then whatever happens he deserves it for being stupid. The entire Lions organization will look really bad.

5 hours ago, Noeller said:

I have a lot of concerns about how much longer Bighill will be around..... he's such a key guy in the room, I'd really hate to lose him, but father time catches us all. 

He needs a a big run stopper on the DL to help him. He's been exposed this year as the backs are coming right at him. Stepping into the hole every game takes its toll. 

[MOBomberFan]

The Edmonton Journal:

[TBURGESS]

15 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Sorry but if Rourke isn't healed & he plays anyway then whatever happens he deserves it for being stupid. The entire Lions organization will look really bad.

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

[Bigblue204]

17 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

I kinda agree with you on this...but for arguments sake...Ellingson isn't starting his career, he also wasn't being presented as the future superstar for not only the franchise but the league and without Ellingson the team isn't significantly worse like it would be if the Leos lost Rourke 1 game before the playoffs. 

Also add in the very real possibility for Rourke to make life changing money if the NFL comes calling...which would end if he gets hurt again. Obviously that window has closed on Ellingson.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bigblue204

[GCn20]

8 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

Ellingson is the perfect illustration of why it is stupid to rush players back. Not sure why you are arguing that it is a good idea? Rourke will probably get re-injured, doesn't deserve it, but it is a likely scenario. I don't agree that Rourke deserves to be re-injured, but the LIons rushing him back will likely pay the price for it and deservedly so. At any rate, they don't have much hope of winning in the playoffs with or without Rourke.

[Booch]

17 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers let Ellingson come back early and he didn't last a whole game. Are you suggesting that Ellingson deserved it and that the entire Bombers organization looks really bad? Of course not. What's different about Rourke and the Leos?

the type of injury and the fact he had surgery...and pretty much every instance of that injury and resulting surgery has never had a player come back that early post screw removal...let alone the actual surgery...so there is that...Ellingson didnt have surgery, and it was never stated that the second stint on the IR was due to the same ailment...thats just an assumption

Edited October 26, 2022 by Booch

[TBURGESS]

25 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Ellingson is the perfect illustration of why it is stupid to rush players back. Not sure why you are arguing that it is a good idea? Rourke will probably get re-injured, doesn't deserve it, but it is a likely scenario. I don't agree that Rourke deserves to be re-injured, but the LIons rushing him back will likely pay the price for it and deservedly so. At any rate, they don't have much hope of winning in the playoffs with or without Rourke.

I'm saying when the Bombers do it, it's called bad luck if the player gets hurt, but if BC does it, it's what he deserves, an IToldyaSo moment, and the entire organization looks really bad. I'm scoffing at the double standard, not arguing that it's a good idea.

We don't know that the Lions are rushing him back, but that's what folks around here are calling it. We had one poster argue that the Lions were rushing him, and arguing that the Dr's didn't give him the go ahead to to throw in practice, which means he's pushing himself, not that the team is pushing him. FTR: Rourke threw during the time that cameras are allowed, not behind closed doors, so the Dr's and team absolutely knew it was going to happen and gave him the go ahead.

The Dr's, who know way more than we do, have given Rourke the go ahead. The team, who have everything to lose if Rourke gets re-injured, have given Rourke the go ahead. Rourke, who would lose an NFL shot next year if he gets hurt again, is ready to at least give it a try. It adds interest to a nothing game this week.

[Bigblue204]

21 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm saying when the Bombers do it, it's called bad luck if the player gets hurt, but if BC does it, it's what he deserves, an IToldyaSo moment, and the entire organization looks really bad. I'm scoffing at the double standard, not arguing that it's a good idea.

I think I explained quite well why it's a worse situation for the Leos and Rourke than it was for the Bombers and Ellingson.

[TBURGESS]

13 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I think I explained quite well why it's a worse situation for the Leos and Rourke than it was for the Bombers and Ellingson.

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play.

Either both organizations look bad or neither do. I take the neither side on this one.

Edited October 26, 2022 by TBURGESS

[Stickem]

Apparently Rourke is going to play according to reports....Let's look at that closely and every facet of the game he has.....Taking off on a running play would be very foolish and down right disastrous for the guy....IF he just stands in the pocket and hopes to carve the opposition apart , eventually he becomes a sitting duck .... his escapability definitely will be hampered trying to coddle the injured area...The scenario is bad anyway look at it BUT it loks like he's going to give it a shot....Foolish to say the least BUT it's his career...

[Jesse]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play.

Either both organizations look bad or neither do.

I guess it depends on your perspective. Both organizations placed their players in dangerous situations. 

The stakes are just higher in BC's case and they stand to do a lot more damage to the player and themselves.

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play.

Either both organizations look bad or neither do. I take the neither side on this one.

I think if Rourke gets hurt, it's a bad look for BC specifically because of his importance to that organization.

[GCn20]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I agree that Rourke is much more important to BC than Ellingson is to Winnipeg, but that doesn't mean that the Lions organization looks bad for letting him play or even that they are forcing him to play.

Either both organizations look bad or neither do. I take the neither side on this one.

Sure both organizations look bad. However, one is risking their season and the other wasn't therefore one team's potential mistake is highly magnified.

Edited October 26, 2022 by GCn20

[Booch]

30 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Sure both organizations look bad. However, one is risking their season and the other wasn't therefore one team's potential mistake is highly magnified.

one guy didnt have surgery to fix his ailment...the other did...and it's not your usual surgery...its surgery to fix it...then more surgery to remove what you used to fix it....a big difference....no...Huge difference

[Bigblue204]

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

one guy didnt have surgery to fix his ailment...the other did...and it's not your usual surgery...its surgery to fix it...then more surgery to remove what you used to fix it....a big difference....no...Huge difference

So Rourke still has screws etc in him?

[Booch]

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

So Rourke still has screws etc in him?

thats what not sure of...recovery from that injury and subsequent total healing includes a second surgery...so did they do it yet...or is the hardware still in there for "good measure"...it's not intended to stay, and the new procedure they are doing trials on to improve back to play time doesnt require that, as it uses different mechanism to fix it...and 100% certain he didnt have that...well because it isn't main stream...and certainly isn't being done in BC... 

[TBURGESS]

If Rourke gets hurt again his season is over. If he doesn't play, his season is over. Same outcome. The risk is IF getting hurt again costs him next season or an NFL shot.

@GCn20 I don't agree that both organizations look bad. I don't think either of them look bad.

[17to85]

An aging receiver is entirely different than a young star qb. Entirely different. Hell any qb is different than an aging receiver 

[Brandon]

I'm assuming BC goes all in and if he gets hurt then they sign BLM next year. 

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

An aging receiver is entirely different than a young star qb. Entirely different. Hell any qb is different than an aging receiver 

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try.

If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

Edited October 26, 2022 by TBURGESS

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try.

If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

what is the argument...one player had surgery and is returning at an unprecedented amount of time, and most likely hasnt had the second part of the surgery...and a guy who handles ball on every snap...the other guy had a non invasive treatment on from what I know was a nagging lingering injury....do u see a difference?...prob not...but there is a massive one...coming from a medical staff that put a reciever out there with a broken hand just last yr...but u prob think thats just fine...like when a team wraps up a guys ankle....correct?

[Geebrr]

We don’t really know what Ellingson’s knee injury is. 

He didn’t get surgery on it, we know that. It could have been misdiagnosed to start. 

There is no mystery over Rourke’s injury. 

[JCon]

 

17 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

We don’t really know what Ellingson’s knee injury is. 

He didn’t get surgery on it, we know that. It could have been misdiagnosed to start. 

There is no mystery over Rourke’s injury. 

Don't matter to some. They just want to argue, even if their point is inconsistent with all the evidence. Save your breath. 

[Booch]

21 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

We don’t really know what Ellingson’s knee injury is. 

He didn’t get surgery on it, we know that. It could have been misdiagnosed to start. 

There is no mystery over Rourke’s injury. 

was a foot/ankle issue....and he had no surgery...looked no worse for wear the whole time out, and also game he played...finished and was not an issue...they just saw and seized the opportunity to rest him, as we were clicking in his absence

[17to85]

35 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

And again, that's not the argument, but nice try.

If you think it's horrible for BC to bring Rourke back 'early', but it's OK for the Bombers to bring Ellingson back 'early', then your problem isn't with bringing players back early. Your problem is with BC doing it.

Question is, did they bring ellingson back early or is he just old and fragile?