GAME THREAD / Lucky Week 13 / Edmonton @ Toronto

[ArgoGabe22]

Here is my original point;

A lot more football to be played, but it's nice to see a younger back step up for us. It seems like a long time since we've had a dominant running game like that (Boyd, Kackert).

Brandon Whitaker is 32 and wasn't a priority re-signing in the off season. I actually think the team had designs of a Kendall Hunter/ James Wilder backfield going in.
At 32 the digression is not only predictable, but nearly certain. He's a fantastic player and team-mate and I doubt he's sung his last song yet, but it's essential for this team to progress with an eye on the long term plan.

O.Lineman generally won't look very good (nor will an offense) if all you do is pass protect. Especially with an immobile QB who is in his mid 30's and hasn't been able to stretch the D. That's a recipe for the infirmary. This new dimension will help and if they can keep the ball rolling could jell this team into a contender.

We may see Colaros and Ray in tandem towards the end of the season.

Most important, as I see it, is the long term plan. Wilder checks that box in that part of the field.

Well, that wasn't too outlandish now was it? And the rebuttal seems (to me) to be a stretch. It brushes off my statement with the implication that CFL GM's don't have master plans, which IMHO, is rubbish. I interjected humour to move on. We don't want a humourless board now do we? I have re-read my post several times and I can't really find issue with this original statement. But I guess someone can pick, if they feel like it.

If there is something I said here that seems way off base, Wobbler, go ahead and flame away. But do me a favour, before you come running to one of the old boys defense (which is sadly predictable in this little forum) please read the original thread through for an unbiased understanding. Us interlopers are not all bad, and we are knowledgeable fans too. Unless of course I am trespassing? Thank you.

Your original point mentioned contracts up to 3-4 years in length. Now, you have excluded that point - which Angelo was referring to. I don't see a problem with disputing that long term contracts are no longer the norm.

[Jon Gonzo]

Your original point mentioned contracts up to 3-4 years in length. Now, you have excluded that point - which Angelo was referring to. I don't see a problem with disputing that long term contracts are no longer the norm.

I omitted nothing. That is the original post, verbatim.

[ArgoGabe22]

I omitted nothing. That is the original post, verbatim.

Ok, well your second post mentioned it which I saw Angelo reply to, in which you replied back, and the saw Wobbler reply to your response. Point is, what is so bad with disputing contract lengths and asking for the last contract that was actually 2+ years?