IN:

 

REC Braylon Bell (Abilene Christian)

DB Matt Pierce (Valdosta State)

K Brett Maher (Nebraska)

DL Kashawn Fraser (Central Michigan)

 

OUT:

OL Quentin Saulsberry

REC Quentin Sims

DB Phillip Benning

DB Gabe Loper

DL Damario Jeffery

This may have been Etienne's wish- his stay here was not a good one for either him or the team, so a fresh start may have been the best for all. The problem is, with him gone, who do we pillory now?

This may have been Etienne's wish- his stay here was not a good one for either him or the team, so a fresh start may have been the best for all. The problem is, with him gone, who do we pillory now?

If there's one thing this fanbase is good at it's hating on players for the sake of hating them. 

Not a huge Etienne fan but I didn't see the need to trade him for Willy.  No one else was going to offer Drew Willy a starting QB contract.

Not a huge Etienne fan but I didn't see the need to trade him for Willy. No one else was going to offer Drew Willy a starting QB contract.

That's what we said all offseason about Burris/Collaros. Trading for Willy before he hit free agency was the right move.

Not a huge Etienne fan but I didn't see the need to trade him for Willy.  No one else was going to offer Drew Willy a starting QB contract.

 

It was the benefit of securing the right to negotiate with Willy before FA. We simply could not sit back and wait…he was the last available "potential " starter and we could not afford to sit on our hands.

I believe Etienne was going to go to Sask. anyways, so this was a no brainer IMO.

Off-season word (from Mike) was that Walters' already had a contract ready for Etienne...  but, yes, he was 'going to Sask anyway'... never get tired of that excuse.

 

And, yes, we should have traded Etienne (or Aprile) for the right to talk to Collaros.

Off-season word (from Mike) was that Walters' already had a contract ready for Etienne...  but, yes, he was 'going to Sask anyway'... never get tired of that excuse.

 

And, yes, we should have traded Etienne (or Aprile) for the right to talk to Collaros.

 

Having a contract ready for him and his accepting it are two different things. After all, he hadn't signed anything to that point.

 

He was going to be a FA, that looked pretty evident.

And you would laugh at the fact that Sask. would have been his 1st choice?

Seems a fit for the expression…"would make sense."

 

As to Collaros, he was released and the way that whole scenario played out, he had no interest in coming to Winnipeg….and Willy did.

 

Off-season word (from Mike) was that Walters' already had a contract ready for Etienne...  but, yes, he was 'going to Sask anyway'... never get tired of that excuse.

 

And, yes, we should have traded Etienne (or Aprile) for the right to talk to Collaros.

 

Having a contract ready for him and his accepting it are two different things. After all, he hadn't signed anything to that point.

 

He was going to be a FA, that looked pretty evident.

And you would laugh at the fact that Sask. would have been his 1st choice?

Seems a fit for the expression…"would make sense."

 

As to Collaros, he was released and the way that whole scenario played out, he had no interest in coming to Winnipeg….and Willy did.

 

 

That answer makes about zero sense.

That's just nonsense.

Off-season word (from Mike) was that Walters' already had a contract ready for Etienne... but, yes, he was 'going to Sask anyway'... never get tired of that excuse.

And, yes, we should have traded Etienne (or Aprile) for the right to talk to Collaros.

Having a contract ready for him and his accepting it are two different things. After all, he hadn't signed anything to that point.

He was going to be a FA, that looked pretty evident.

And you would laugh at the fact that Sask. would have been his 1st choice?

Seems a fit for the expression…"would make sense."

As to Collaros, he was released and the way that whole scenario played out, he had no interest in coming to Winnipeg….and Willy did.

That answer makes about zero sense.

I followed pretty easily... And it made sense to me..

Mike, I always wondered what you looked like. You're not a bad dancer!

 

 

 

Off-season word (from Mike) was that Walters' already had a contract ready for Etienne... but, yes, he was 'going to Sask anyway'... never get tired of that excuse.

And, yes, we should have traded Etienne (or Aprile) for the right to talk to Collaros.

Having a contract ready for him and his accepting it are two different things. After all, he hadn't signed anything to that point.

He was going to be a FA, that looked pretty evident.

And you would laugh at the fact that Sask. would have been his 1st choice?

Seems a fit for the expression…"would make sense."

As to Collaros, he was released and the way that whole scenario played out, he had no interest in coming to Winnipeg….and Willy did.

That answer makes about zero sense.

I followed pretty easily... And it made sense to me..

 

That's what I was thinking.  Makes sense to me.  Collaros didn't want to come here, that was quite evident.

 

Long story short Etienne couldn't start in three years under Lapolice, Crowton, Burke, Bellefeuille and then dumped when the new regime came over... Kelly is still here despite a massive overhaul... What more need I say?

Kelly and Bellefeuille are dating. That's why Kelly is still here.

 

Bellefeuille needed someone to fill the gap when Boltus was pried away from his loving embrace.

 

Quentin Saulsberry highlight reel?

To me the whole kelly etienne argument is much ado about nothing. Kelly is american, Etienne canadian. Kelly is older, etienne is what? 23, heck our draft picks this year will be older. 

 

You cant really compare the 2. It's like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges. They both aren't very good but regardless of what people say, etienne is a young guy still, kelly is not. Etienne could still turn in to a very productive receiver and since he's canadian and young, he will get that chance. Kelly is a journeyman american, dime a dozen replaceable american receiver. Etienne would have made a good backup if he played special teams. 

To me the whole kelly etienne argument is much ado about nothing. Kelly is american, Etienne canadian. Kelly is older, etienne is what? 23, heck our draft picks this year will be older. 

 

You cant really compare the 2. It's like comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges. They both aren't very good but regardless of what people say, etienne is a young guy still, kelly is not. Etienne could still turn in to a very productive receiver and since he's canadian and young, he will get that chance. Kelly is a journeyman american, dime a dozen replaceable american receiver. Etienne would have made a good backup if he played special teams. 

 

Next time please read the comments to understand the comparison.     

 

And if he was a dime a dozen then how come he wasn't cut and how come the club didn't sign someone else to take his spot in TC to compete???

 

And if he was a dime a dozen then how come he wasn't cut and how come the club didn't sign someone else to take his spot in TC to compete???

 

That's what we're trying to figure out.