you’re biased because you’re an Elks fan. of course you’ll think all great things.
that Toronto game was played vs a Toronto team that really didn’t care either way what happened in that game, which was evident by who did not play or dress and backups saw much of the action. I KNOW if that game had meant Toronto gets 1st place instead of 2nd, they would have played all their starters and played hard the entire game. Elks would have lost.
This is better, but you are still waffling after not making good last season already when you were not engaging in such waffling or any restrictions on your claim.
Pick an exact week on the schedule so you can’t welch again when you get this one wrong, please.
And what’s this about backups being played or not? It’s either Ford starting and playing or not. So what if a backup comes in late if Ford is out due to injury!? Again, please be specific.
We have already seen some of this before in the thread linked above, but as pointed out previously, none of those excuses or restrictions were in your original representation that you would give credit to Ford if they defeated the Argos. Period. That was YOUR claim with no such restrictions or excuses. 'Fess up.
The rest about not caring or whatever, whether it was you or the Argos or any other party, was never stated in your original claim so long as the Elks won.
You are just making that part up now because clearly you are butt-hurt about being called out again.
Sure I’m a fan of the Elks, no question there, but your integrity is what I question and not your opinion before the fact that you got it clearly wrong.
we won’t know yet what teams are the best for a few weeks into the season. It’s a good bet that Montreal, WInnipeg, Toronto will be good teams, B.C. probably, Saskatchewan… well we never know.. sigh. Hamilton might be good as well.
Ford has to start the game vs a team who’s starters are their first string team.
you’re telling me that this isn’t automatically implied? seriously? any Football fan who has any decent understanding of football knows without it being said out loud that when a team who has nothing to play for at the end of the season and plays backups or takes out starters at half time or if they get a decent lead is not putting in the same effort and desire to win the game vs playing a game where it has meaning towards the playoffs etc.
I’ve never had to be told this or have to tell anyone this (until now). it’s implied.. almost like an unwriten rule.
That game was played against an Argo club that had just taken the lead. Ford responded with 2 long throws on the money - to Lewis @ midfield &, from the 40 yd line, to Mathis (high where the defender couldn’t catch it) to regain the lead. Those were 2 pro throws. Toronto responded later by knotting the game - so you can’t say it meant nothing. It meant a LOT when you consider they gave the reins to Arbuckle & THAT was a tune up, as it turns out, he really needed to get confidence should he have to play in the playoffs.
The fact is that @ 0-7 the Elks were last in most offensive categories & ended up as the 2nd highest offence in the league behind Hamilton.
It’s interesting that you want proof that Ford can do well against the best teams which, hilariously, doesn’t include mention of your team. I guess they’re not good.
Well, maybe you’re right. Last year @ Mosaic Ford led the offence to 515 yds total offence. The Elks shredded the league’s best run defence to the tune of 276 yds as part of a 3 headed monster run game. The Riders were taken to the shed in their own back yard on Aug 3 & never won another game until Sept 20. Bam.
For the entire season, or do you have cut-off date and if so, which week?
If the backup quarterback is in, fine, deal is off, but what other players as well if the STARTING quarterback for one of these opposing teams is playing, whether he starts or not (i.e. he was benched due to poor performance, and then the backup sucks, so back in he goes after his punishment and hopefully hungrier, not a unique strategy)?
Nope, on bold claims NOTHING is implied. The burden of any implications, on what is otherwise stated quite plainly and clearly, is on the person making the claim and not others, especially when continuously dogging another team or player, in ANY sport.
So take some personality responsibility why don’t you?
It WHAT YOU STATED and not what you claim you did not state, especially well after the fact like now. Or it’s just more of your BS like this post that I figure a weasel would enjoy too.
You simply did not make any clarifications with your bold claims about Tre Ford BEFORE the game, and your prediction was dead wrong after a tough game with it turns out who ultimately was the better quarterback at the end of the season, but nobody could have known that at the time.
It’s not the burden of others to figure out what you imply or do not imply when what you state clearly, without restriction or qualification, is some bold derogatory claim or some other daring claim or bet.
So either fix your BS and man up for once here, or you can forget it too because if you can’t be clear, YOU are full of it.
How so? Having a CDN makes you worse off than CDNs at other positions, because an injury means ratio changes have to occur (unless you have a good CDN back up too)
Having a CDN qb means that you can start 6 elsewhere instead of 7. If you pull him then you need to add another CDN anywhere on offence. You have at least 13 more on the bench so what’s the issue? If you don’t have 1 that’s capable of taking reps on offence then the problem is your staff, not the rules or the strategy.
But having 4 starting Cdn O-linemen you only need 3 Cdns elsewhere.
really? Well I remember the riders where once fined because of the PRECISE issue