What would it mean

if ticats beat lions without Printers?

Will it spell the end for someone?

Who would that be?

Would it also spell the end for am RB?

Inquiring minds want to know.

if we win without printers, meaning porter starts and finishes, it would mean printers time is up, he will be released in the off season

on the RB side, Jesse's time in Hamilton is done now. he's constantly hurt and didn't want to sign an extension with us

Ah, I see the connection there. To take that "logical" progression further, if the cats beat the lions without printers, the entire secondary, the defensive coordinator AND the team doctor should be shipped out post-haste.

NO, I wasnt sure which rbs would be playing, but I meant to ask if hamilton beats the lions, would one RB who didnt play be toast.

That's not exactly true. Jesse said he wanted to test free agency. Any player would. If you were in his shoes you'd like to explore all your options and you'd most likely go to the highest bidder. That may have been Hamilton, it might not. He didn't rule out coming back to Hamilton, he simply said he wanted to test free agency.

And I can't blame him really. Football players only have so many before their time in football is up, so you might as well cash in while you still can.

Jesse participated in practice all week

and he wanted to play on Saturday.

Conspiracy theory types..discuss.

P.S.

Somebody was awfully anxious to
get Kenton Keith in right away.

Seems like he always "wants" to play. It's too bad that such a great talent is so fragile.

or is the braintrust keeping him out for other reasons
than this latest injury which was considered so slight

that it was declared that he would likely be back this week?

This injury did actually prove to be so slight
that he was able to practice all week, Rusty25

but for some reason they don't want him to play?

i dont think a win in bc would mean the end of printers. as for jessee i think we have already said good bye.

He even went as far as to say he would give Hamilton first shot at re-signing him, I can't remember where I read that, but I DID read it

It would mean hell has frozen over, seriously when is the last time Hamilton beat BC?

I'll check the cave paintings and get back to you...

the last time we beat BC was in Greg Marshall's first game as head coach, we won in Vancouver 38-36.

I remember back around 91, lions were in first place going into the last week of the season and ticats were out of it in the east.

Ticats come to bc and high odds against them winning.

I remember that in order for BC to lose 1st, the stamps and the esks had to win their games, and bc had to lose. I meant to put 20 down on that scenerio. Well it all happened, and I woulda won 300+, except I forgot to get the ticket.

It could happen again, as far as ham winning anyhow.

The Lions dropped from 1st all the way to 3rd.

In Don McPherson's first start at QB.

Why does that seem somehow related to Saturday's game?

(I just hope that if it does turn out the same, Porter turns out a bit better than McPherson.)

According to today's Spec

Apparently, some diagnostic tests done on Jesse's shoulder on Wednesday
are what led to the decision the Ticats made to sit him out for this game.

How many potential free agents say this and how many actually resign with that team?

Why does it seem that all Jesse is looking for is a payday. If he wanted to be here, he would have signed. To me if he wanted to be here, he wouldn't test free agency waters.

It sounds as though the Ticats have already wanted to talk to him. Obviously he is not giving Hamilton a first shot at resigning him.

Printers is already done. Jesse will have to take a cut in pay to stay.

[quote="Tiger_Dirt"]

if we win without printers, meaning porter starts and finishes, it would mean printers time is up, he will be released in the off season

8) Surely you're not serious ??
 You actually think that this one game, of which Printers will not play in, will lead to his release from the team, if we win  ???????                    <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->

lead to it? More likely be the final nail.