Steve Milton....CFL predictions 2008

Steve Milton outdid himself on the CFL predictions, pretty funny.
"Coming on in relief for Kerry Joseph in the final half of a game, Toronto's Michael Bishop will throw for 300 yards, touching off exactly the kind of quarterbacking controversy the CFL needs in its largest market. Meanwhile, it will take about four games for a Lions' quarterbacking controversy to leak over to the media."
Like we didn't know that all of the major sports reporters are based in Toronto.

The best one is.....
"Inside the Ticats' main office, an employee's head will explode because of something written by Spec beat reporter Ken Peters."

[url=http://www.thespec.com/Sports/Local%20Sports/article/392303]http://www.thespec.com/Sports/Local%20S ... cle/392303[/url]

That was the best :lol: :lol: :lol:

It was funny but it won't happen - the team won't give Peters a reason to write such, um, explosive things about us this season. :wink:

I wonder if he was serious about the petition to get the Tailgating law exception for the Bills games

:lol: That's awesome!

Steve is a great writer and I have always appreciated his columns. Why he isn't our beat writer I have no idea.

A good point in theory, Caretaker, but our boy Kenny
will find something to get his 'jollies' and annoy us.

Kenny won't be satisfied with his pre-season rubbing
of the team's record of recent years in their face

and his moaning about not finding the right new talent
and a returning receiver he deems not good enough.

And that receiver is not good enough, 30 catches and averaging under 10 ypc is pretty bad and a fair point by Peters. It’s too bad all the sensitive ears on here can’t accept it.

If he had an amzing camp then fine he deserves to be here, but no one can say he deserves to be here after the season he had last year.

The problem as I see it is until the first game Thursday, there's not much to report (as far as we know :wink:), so Ken resorts to editorializing.

Something that disturbs me is Ken seems to think that being confrontational is the same thing as asking tough questions. I disagree.

Asking a tough question means asking a question that the interviewee SHOULD be able to answer, but the interviewee doesn't want to answer or doesn't have a good answer for. Sometimes it is impossible to do this without appearing confrontational. So be it.

But asking for speculative answers to banal questions that effectively boil down to "is the team still going to stink?" doesn't help anyone, the Spec's readership included.

It sounds like all the obvious questions of "what has the team done to get better?" have been answered. The question "will the changes made so far produce better results?" can only be answered with speculation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a coach or GM to even make an educated guess about that. There are too many variables. Even when a team is doing well, this kind of question will most likely be answered with meaningless spin.

A more interesting line of questioning (and to Ken's credit I think he's tried to ask this) would be "what is the greatest area (or areas) of concern right now?" and "What additional steps does the club plan to take to address that area?"

An example of a tough but valid question would be to ask a coach to justify or give reasons for a controversial decision.

The most interesting of the 5 Ws is "why".

A "why" question can still have plenty of teeth, for example "Why should we believe this season will be any different?"

We all wonder when the Cats are going to start winning. But at times, Ken takes on the air of a kid in the back seat asking "are we there yet? are we there yet?". It doesn't add anything interesting to the discussion.

a milton story and the thread talks about peters, LOL.