- Welcome to Blue Bombers Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: Blue Bombers announce coac...
Last post by Jesse - Today at 01:41:56 PMQuote from: Tecno on Today at 08:29:57 AMBut that scenario doesn't make sense. That would imply that MOS preferred Hogan as the next OC?! Unless Bourgoin was dead set on following Buck regardless of what was offered. Or... Bourgoin was asked and wanted way more than Hogan and the coach cap wouldn't allow it.
Bourgoin was always the one who made sense to me as an internal hire, which we've come to expect from MOS. So, whatever the reason (we'll never know), perhaps he was the initial choice but he chose to go with Buck instead.
#2
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Complete Bl...
Last post by Jesse - Today at 01:35:39 PMQuote from: Tecno on Today at 08:44:23 AMYa, maybe it's not really "how long they sat holding the clipboard?", maybe it's more "when they first stepped on the field in reg season, did they suck?".
I didn't even know there were guys named Rourke, Kelly, or Alexander on a roster in the CFL until the moment they stepped on the field (usually in injury relief). Then they all lit it up. Same for Dru Brown -- the lighting it up part, not the "didn't know" part, but that's only because I'm a WPG fan.
The Cody & T.Harris examples are probably the best Calvillo-like counter-examples. But those examples are getting real stale (like a decade ago stale). There's really no current new guy starting who didn't light it up and have instant success.
You just gotta have that "it" factor immediately. Wilson has had a few (big!) opportunities to light it up. He's been mediocre (but not crap) every time.
This is what I'm saying.
#3
Offside Forum / Re: 2026 IIHF World Junior Cha...
Last post by Pigskin - Today at 12:15:40 PMCan and Lat today.
#4
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: NFL Option Clause
Last post by Tecno - Today at 08:55:36 AMQuote from: Jesse on December 26, 2025, 03:24:49 PMI guess my opinion is that, given it happens so rarely, it's not worth trying to negotiate it out of the next CBA.
Well, you're right about that. My idea will never make it into any CBA because it only hurts the players (they can't get a big payday immediately upon return). But it would help the teams, and really make fans happy and make things make more sense. "Why isn't dude X coming back to our team after an NFL stint?"
#5
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Complete Bl...
Last post by Tecno - Today at 08:44:23 AMQuote from: Jesse on December 26, 2025, 03:21:57 PMOf the very best QBs that I've seen over the past 20+ years watching the CFL, they usually look pretty good as soon as they get an opportunity.
Ya, maybe it's not really "how long they sat holding the clipboard?", maybe it's more "when they first stepped on the field in reg season, did they suck?".
I didn't even know there were guys named Rourke, Kelly, or Alexander on a roster in the CFL until the moment they stepped on the field (usually in injury relief). Then they all lit it up. Same for Dru Brown -- the lighting it up part, not the "didn't know" part, but that's only because I'm a WPG fan.
The Cody & T.Harris examples are probably the best Calvillo-like counter-examples. But those examples are getting real stale (like a decade ago stale). There's really no current new guy starting who didn't light it up and have instant success.
You just gotta have that "it" factor immediately. Wilson has had a few (big!) opportunities to light it up. He's been mediocre (but not crap) every time.
#6
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: Blue Bombers announce coac...
Last post by Tecno - Today at 08:29:57 AMQuote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 26, 2025, 04:33:43 PMWell they let Buck walk out the door with Kevin Bourgoin on a leash, if O'Shea had offered him the OC job he likely doesn't follow Buck to BC. Just guessing, but I would say he was better equipped for the step up than Hogan.
But that scenario doesn't make sense. That would imply that MOS preferred Hogan as the next OC?! Unless Bourgoin was dead set on following Buck regardless of what was offered. Or... Bourgoin was asked and wanted way more than Hogan and the coach cap wouldn't allow it.
#7
Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: CFL (Non-Bombers) off-seas...
Last post by Tecno - Today at 08:19:19 AMQuote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 26, 2025, 05:16:27 PMJohnson was #4 in receiving yards, Dohnte Meyers #7
Deceiving (yards). Meyers was the homerun WR, Johnson was the clutch SB. Meyers would catch them way down field make a guy miss and get 70YDS. Johnson was doing the hard work and making spectacular grabs.
Meyers looked to be nothing special -- maybe a route guy, not a hands guy.
Johnson is the guy who will make the stabs and get you 1st downs.
Looking at stats though, it appears those who didn't watch every game may think Meyers is the guy deserving of the big $$ FA! If Johnson for some odd reason is going for cheap, I'm all over that!! Man would he be good as a solution to our short game woes.
#8
Offside Forum / Re: 2025-26 Manitoba Bisons & ...
Last post by Hollywood - Today at 05:58:29 AMDecember 27, 2025: C.W. SCHEDULING AND IMPACT OF S.F.U.
With Simon Fraser planning an application to join U-Sports and the CW, effective 2027-28, the impact on hockey scheduling has to be considered.
In my opinion, the addition of Simon Fraser is inevitable. They would likely have to introduce a timetable for adding a women's program. No problem, Calgary did it a few years back.
I have previously posted about the current CW divisional scheduling format, which rotates. I do not care for it. Especially since next year the Prairie teams and BC teams are due to form a division, thus ending the supposed cost savings which motivated this format. In any event, 2026-27 would end a 3-year cycle and allow for a fresh start with a 10-team conference in 2027-28.
I have devised a six-year rotation which would do away with divisions, and would also lean into lower cost travel arrangements.
The league would be divided into four segments (not divisions) for scheduling purposes:
BC: UBC, Simon Fraser, Trinity Western
Edmonton: Alberta & MacEwan
Calgary: Calgary & Mount Royal
Prairies: Saskatchewan, Regina, & Manitoba
With ten teams, there would be no byes, This would free up time for non-conference play. The CW would continue to play weekend double-headers.
Each team would play the other teams in their segment four times per season, and the teams in the other segments either twice or four times per season.
The "interlocking" segments would work like this:
- BC and the Prairies would play either the Edmonton teams 4 times, and the Calgary teams 2 times or vice versa, then rotate the following season.
- Within Alberta, each Edmonton team would play one Calgary team 4 times, and the other 2 times, the rotate the following season.
- The BC v Prairies interlock would work on a 3-year rotation, i.e. 4 games against one opponent and 2 games against the other two opponents each season.
The teams would play four games against five opponents, and two games against four opponents. It is easy to make a schedule where the first five series on the schedule and the last five series on the schedule would be against the "four games" opponents. Also the middle four series would be against the "two games" opponents. (If interested, I could send out a draft schedule.)
I have entered this onto a chart:
The teams can, of course, be shuffled within their segment, e.g. switch Manitoba and Saskatchewan, or Simon Fraser and UBC, or Calgary and Mount Royal, etc. Also, the Edmonton and Calgary segments could be switched.
For the 2027-28 season, you look at the number in the upper left box. So for Regina, they would play four games against Trinity, Alberta, MacEwan, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (the first five and last five series on their schedule, though not necessarily in that order) and two games against each of UBC, Simon Fraser, Calgary, and Mount Royal (which would be the middle four series on their schedule).
In the 2028-29 season, you look at the middle number is the first column, etc. as outlined in the guide box at the bottom of the chart.
In the CW, the women's schedule is always the inverse of the men's schedule. If on a given weekend Alberta is at Saskatchewan in men's, Saskatchewan is at Alberta in women's. So this format works for both.
This works out surprisingly easily.
With Simon Fraser planning an application to join U-Sports and the CW, effective 2027-28, the impact on hockey scheduling has to be considered.
In my opinion, the addition of Simon Fraser is inevitable. They would likely have to introduce a timetable for adding a women's program. No problem, Calgary did it a few years back.
I have previously posted about the current CW divisional scheduling format, which rotates. I do not care for it. Especially since next year the Prairie teams and BC teams are due to form a division, thus ending the supposed cost savings which motivated this format. In any event, 2026-27 would end a 3-year cycle and allow for a fresh start with a 10-team conference in 2027-28.
I have devised a six-year rotation which would do away with divisions, and would also lean into lower cost travel arrangements.
The league would be divided into four segments (not divisions) for scheduling purposes:
BC: UBC, Simon Fraser, Trinity Western
Edmonton: Alberta & MacEwan
Calgary: Calgary & Mount Royal
Prairies: Saskatchewan, Regina, & Manitoba
With ten teams, there would be no byes, This would free up time for non-conference play. The CW would continue to play weekend double-headers.
Each team would play the other teams in their segment four times per season, and the teams in the other segments either twice or four times per season.
The "interlocking" segments would work like this:
- BC and the Prairies would play either the Edmonton teams 4 times, and the Calgary teams 2 times or vice versa, then rotate the following season.
- Within Alberta, each Edmonton team would play one Calgary team 4 times, and the other 2 times, the rotate the following season.
- The BC v Prairies interlock would work on a 3-year rotation, i.e. 4 games against one opponent and 2 games against the other two opponents each season.
The teams would play four games against five opponents, and two games against four opponents. It is easy to make a schedule where the first five series on the schedule and the last five series on the schedule would be against the "four games" opponents. Also the middle four series would be against the "two games" opponents. (If interested, I could send out a draft schedule.)
I have entered this onto a chart:
The teams can, of course, be shuffled within their segment, e.g. switch Manitoba and Saskatchewan, or Simon Fraser and UBC, or Calgary and Mount Royal, etc. Also, the Edmonton and Calgary segments could be switched.
For the 2027-28 season, you look at the number in the upper left box. So for Regina, they would play four games against Trinity, Alberta, MacEwan, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (the first five and last five series on their schedule, though not necessarily in that order) and two games against each of UBC, Simon Fraser, Calgary, and Mount Royal (which would be the middle four series on their schedule).
In the 2028-29 season, you look at the middle number is the first column, etc. as outlined in the guide box at the bottom of the chart.
In the CW, the women's schedule is always the inverse of the men's schedule. If on a given weekend Alberta is at Saskatchewan in men's, Saskatchewan is at Alberta in women's. So this format works for both.
This works out surprisingly easily.
#9
Offside Forum / Re: Winnipeg Jets Discussion -...
Last post by JockitchwithRich - Today at 04:25:06 AMJust looked and indeed Shaw scored and Mooseland must be happy
#10
Offside Forum / Re: 2026 IIHF World Junior Cha...
Last post by JockitchwithRich - Today at 04:17:41 AMMy word how this game got into shoot and score action
Certain that Canada will need to play harder away from the puck or their games will be much to chaotic
Not sure if anyone really was impressive. Felt both sides played absolutely no holds barred pond hockey
Certain that Canada will need to play harder away from the puck or their games will be much to chaotic
Not sure if anyone really was impressive. Felt both sides played absolutely no holds barred pond hockey