GCn20
-
Posts
6,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by GCn20
-
-
14 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
I ain't dying on any hill. A QB tandem that failed to get their team into the playoffs is not historically significant imo. Sorry, but I don't make the rules of who gets celebrated as a QB and doesn't or that it is almost always tied to Grey Cups and winning. Just ask Kevin Glenn.
-
17 hours ago, Mark H. said:
A 3 win team making the playoffs is not just conjecture. You can't just dismiss some of the points Speed made.
You also can't dismiss that wins matter when talking CFL history that wins matter. BTW, if context matters as you say the Riders offence finished 4th overall that year in points scored. Does that sound historically significant to you? I have said all along that the Barnes/Hufnagel combo was a good one...no doubt about it. However, I just don't see them as a historically significant QB tandem....they won nothing. This league has a long history of very good QB tandems and Barnes/Huffer would be somewhere in the middle of the pack imo. I don't care how weak the East was that year and I'm not sure why it even matters? Every West team played the same amount of games vs the East and each other...the Riders finished 4th and out of the playoffs. Also, of the sake of context it should be added that Hamilton finished with the 2nd best record in the CFL that year at 11-4-1 so the argument that a crossover would have resulted in a Cup berth where they would have defeated the Moon and the Edmonton dynasty goes even further out the window. Simple as that. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle is not context it's a hypothetical reach to justify the fact that Speed has a boner for this duo that didn't get it done in the win column and were defeated in the final game of the season by BC in a game to decide 3rd and final playoff positioning.
-
2 hours ago, johnzo said:
Watched this gem last night. Check out Clements' footwork!
Willard Reaves just trucking guys too. Forgot how good Reaves was. Weird his name rarely comes up whenever we debate best Bomber RBs of all time and it should be in the discussion every time.
-
17 minutes ago, camper_2 said:
Again, your only looking at your point of view, which you should and can. But, from my point I look at the prospects listed, not where they will fall in draft order, but who they are and how they would be of value to the Bombers position wise, player wise or a "fit". As I mentioned yesterday, over the past years I do start looking at prospects in Nov including time leading up to the draft (who are they, what are their strengths or weakness, their numbers, etc).
There is no one, who is going to get it bang on, from #1 to #72 and I'm not looking for that either. As far as your comments which I read, I will pat you on the back, well done!!
As far as yesterday's mock, I don't agree with some of Hodge's suggestions for the Bombers and leave it at that. And if you ask the question, do I have a mock for the Bombers, I say, yes (starting with position need and then player choices for those needs). But very much different to what you saw yesterday on 3 Down.
In closing, I do see value in what Hodge's and others provide in their mocks, it means something to me. To you perhaps not so much, besides those that side with you. I also believe there are others, besides me who like these mocks. Maybe there is a split here, right down the middle.
I like many, many people's mock drafts. Dunk, Ferguson, Forde all give some really good mocks when they do them. What I don't want in a mock is poorly reasoned picks such as what Hodge is known for and therefore I, personally, don't see a lot of value in them. We have published lists of the top prospects, they are available to all in abundance. Now tell me a well reasoned argument for where they may end up and I won't hold it against any mock drafter when they get it wrong. Throw darts at names and back it up with very poorly thought out logic and you've wasted my time. I would suggest that is how most people who follow mock drafts feel.
-
43 minutes ago, bigg jay said:
For me it's not so much the accuracy but the logic behind the picks.
For example, you can't convince me that the Bombers will go with 2 FB's in their 1st 3 picks of a fairly deep draft because of a "glaring need" at that position (according to Hodge). That's where he (and their site in general) falls way short. When you look at how the Bombers use a FB, what makes that a glaring need? Mike Miller, over the course of 4 seasons with us had 8 catches (10 targets), and 3 carries. Is that the kind of production you'd want to use a higher draft pick to replace? I get there's more to the FB role than the odd carry or catch but that's easily replaceable without using draft capitol.
The ONLY thing we require out of a FB is to be able to come into the game once a drive or so and be a blocker. Our FBs don't get touches, nor should they more than just a few times a season. We could convert literally half a dozen guys to that position right now, why on earth would we draft in the first parts of the draft doing that. Even if I could get past the obvious that FB is not a priority, say somehow the Bombers felt the need to add a FB....they wouldn't draft 2 of them in the first 3 rounds. That, all by itself, defies all logic.
1 hour ago, M.Silverback said:I'm going to sound like I'm a John Hodge burner account on this forum (I'm not), but the CFL draft is by far the toughest to predict in terms of order, who gets picked. So many factors, but the biggest being the best players aren't ever picked high because of NFL interest. So, you're guessing on how GM's will choose the best "available" player, and then factoring in positions that actually matter in the CFL for ratio. This isn't the NFL, NBA, NHL where a casual fan can probably get 50% accuracy on the first round. I like CFL mock drafts (3downnation and cfl.ca) just to get to know potential players. I know RSEQ players pretty well because I watch every game for one school, but clueless as to anyone else. So if your criteria is you only like mock drafts for their accurate selection order predictions , no debate on CFL draft predictions.
Some mocks are closer to the mark than others. Hodges aren't even in the realm of reality normally nor does his reasoning for making those picks make a lick of sense. Their are degrees of being wrong and no one is going to get more than a few picks right. However, Hodge's picks are so grossly incorrect that it borders on bizarre sometimes.
-
2 hours ago, Jpan85 said:
It wasn’t last week
Awesome. I read FL's post and thought i had missed it.
1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:That wasn't the main one and there's a reason they don't advertise it out to everyone. No disrespect to the attendees but from the clips I saw there wasn't a lot of professional level talent.
My mistake. I read a post saying it was last week and didn't bother to fact check it.
-
19 hours ago, M.Silverback said:
Not sure I get the vitriol towards 3downnation and John Hodge. We all love the CFL. TSN and Sportsnet barely cover any off season news. Even in season, while broadcasting games, TSN is pretty light on content other than game summary articles. 3downnation has been around since 2015 and overall does a better job than anywhere else with CFL news. cfl.ca is good, and Ed Tait writes some really interesting content on bluebombers.com. But 3downnation is really my first stop to get any CFL content that I'm interested in - signings, draft profiles, USports stuff, CFL players in the NFL ... I like what they do. And I am in no way affiliated or compensated by the 3downnation corporation 😃
Nobody has hate towards 3DN, but if you are going to add opinion to your site make it informed opinion. I think their news reporting for the CFL is very good. Their opinion pieces are terrible. If 3DN is reading this, WE are your viewership. It's not so much vitriol or hate towards them it's readership simply giving it's opinion. They disabled their comment section so when feedback happens anywhere 3DN should appreciate it.
-
15 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:
The CFL Combine last week created little buzz for the upcoming season, most media outlets paid no attention to it at all, including league partner TSN. This has to be the dullest off-season in recent memory, hopefully they bring back the concept of CFL Week next year in Wpg. and they put some effort into creating a bigger spotlight for their product during the off-season. The league has regressed in this department, the biggest story this winter has been bad boy Chad Kelly and we can't even fight about it anymore! 😄
I didn't even know the combine was last week and I'm a diehard CFL fan. If they can't reach me they don't have a snowballs chance of drumming up interest to the casual fan.
-
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Sure, I’ll put together a mock when it makes sense. Since I know I’m who you’re asking about.
Remember the mock drafts I shot down last year? And how I told you it was a bad draft year? I do. But in case you don’t …
https://3downnation.com/2023/03/09/john-hodges-2023-cfl-mock-draft-1-0/
First overall pick went 16, nailed it. Our first pick at 8 went 20th, nailed it. 10 and 11 (as OL, nonetheless) went 48th and 57th and their situations didn’t change at all. I’m not criticizing his mock draft because he’s a bit off. I criticize it because it’s never even close, because he has no clue.
I like reading Dunk's mock, but Hodges has been completely out to lunch every year he has made one. Like really bad. I'm not going to pretend I could put one together that is better because I really don't know any of these guys but I will at least have the courtesy to not do so knowing that. Hodge may want to do the same.
- rebusrankin, wbbfan and Noeller
-
3
-
23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Whatever. The Western Conference was very, very strong in 1981. The Esks finished 14-1-1 for first place, The Bombers went 11-5 & finished second. The Lions 10-6 finishing third & the Riders at 9-7 finished fourth in the West. Combined, the West won 50 regular season games that year & the East just 21.
In 1981, the Montreal Alouettes finished third in the East & made the playoffs with an abysmal 3-13 record. How freaking embarrassing for the CFL was that? The league's credibility was called into question. The Riders won 6 more games than the Als & were fourth in the West yet didn't qualify for the playoffs because there was no crossover. I remember fans & media crying how things needed to change. However, in typical CFL fashion, I remember the league getting right on it by taking another 16 years before it would allow crossovers in the playoffs beginning in 1997.
What happened to the Riders was a travesty. I'm just glad the Bombers never experienced anything close to that back then. Chances are had there been a crossover, the Riders would have been the Eastern representative in the Grey Cup. Who knows, maybe they would have upset the Eskimos as they barely beat the 5-11 Ottawa Rough Riders that year.
But sure, it was the Riders quarterbacking. It was just average. They didn't win.
9-7 and they would have beat Moon and company....sure whatever. They finished 4th in the West out of the playoffs. Crossover or no crossover this wasn't some dynamo of a team. I didn't say they were average btw, just that they don't deserve the moniker of two headed monster and unstoppable force that people had bandied about. They were a good tandem, nothing more.
14 hours ago, Mark H. said:Context matters.
True. However, at the end of the day none of that happened. They were the 4th place team in the division and didn't make the playoffs. Everything else is just conjecture. Luck of the draw has not been kind to many, many really good QB performances. The gold standard will always be the ability to win when discussing QBs. It's why Marino is an afterthought to Montana etc. etc.
-
20 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here but entering do my work for me into ai things like Chatgpt doesn’t require much if any critical thought.
I've never used it and wouldn't know where to start. I'm sure, like most things, after you learn it it's easy. My point though was sarcastic as the post was mostly a copy and paste from the 5 posts before it.
-
2 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:
The idea of us taking a lineman in round 1 and a DL in round 2 works for me but I don't get us taking the rb/fb Hodge suggests. If the draft went they way he did I think we'd go OL going to the US as a futures pick in round 2. The ST in round 3 pick and the rational is laughable.
Yea...FB maybe after the 3rd round. We don't use one enough to be really all in before that. Would make no sense as our FB is really just a 6th OL most of the time.
3 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:The idea of us taking a lineman in round 1 and a DL in round 2 works for me but I don't get us taking the rb/fb Hodge suggests. If the draft went they way he did I think we'd go OL going to the US as a futures pick in round 2. The ST in round 3 pick and the rational is laughable.
I could see us going OL round 1, DL round 2, and OL flyer in round 3.
- wbbfan and rebusrankin
-
2
-
I suspect that we will be looking at the trenches early in this draft. The last few drafts have been BPA, but I'm not sure we have that luxury this year.
- wbbfan and rebusrankin
-
2
-
13 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Like I said, 4600 yards & 33 touchdown passes are better than just okay. If they did that with the Bombers you'd be crowing over their performance.
Not if they went 9-7. Like I said, I wouldn't be disappointed either but I like winning better than I like stats. My top two tandems that I measure all others are Austin/Burgess and Holloway/Barnes. Both put up big numbers, both had championships to their name. Not trying to be a bugaboo about it, I just value wins as part of the equation.
-
12 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
Ni idea why you'd take offense to what I say but it seems you need a Snickers way more than me. Hufnagel & Barnes had a helluva season in 81. They truly were one of the gretest tandems to ever play. Why all the angst?
Like I said, the CFL was so abuzz about their play that they were given a nickname J.J. Barnagel by someone in the media & the name stuck.. Think that would happen if they stunk? It's not always the qbs fault when they lose. The Rider defense wasn't up to par so they gave up a lot of points. With the Bomber tandem, Clements played 75% of the time with Huff coming in for the other 25%. In saskatchewan, Hufnagel played 60% of the time & Joe Barnes about 40%. So you can't even compare the two tandems. In Saskatchewan, both guys played a lot & played well.
They didn't win. I have consistently said for years that's my ultimate measuring stick for QBs. It's why I don't believe Trevor Harris was ever an upper echelon QB for instance. I truly believe that really good offence is good for 10 wins in this league by itself. You wanna go higher than that and then you need defence and ST help. Just my opinion. I remember watching Barnagel, and they were OK. Just in case you think my post is purely Rider hate, the very best QB combo I have ever seen was Austin/Burgess.....now that was a killer combo. I'm not trying to slag Huf/Barnes, just that I think they were average.
-
3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:
I'll take a crack at answering that.
Lazy thinker that is helping facilitate the dumbing down of society?
I would think it would take more thought to learn how to do that, than the thought that content would have taken.
-
20 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:
That makes 15 Import receivers competing for Bailey's old job.
Hopefully one of them is our next Schoen.
- wbbfan and rebusrankin
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, bigg jay said:
And released two days ago.
https://www.si.com/fannation/ufl/news/dc-defenders-release-players-first-wave-ufl-roster-cuts
May have asked for his release when the Bombers came calling.
- Stickem, wbbfan and rebusrankin
-
3
-
On 2024-03-08 at 7:04 PM, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:
**** the CFL haters. Never include them in any equation.
Totally agree. I don't dislike CFL haters, I feel sorry for them. Their own bigotry towards an exceptional product is making them miss out on some pretty damn good football.
-
13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
The two headed monster played much better than that lame description.. Both qbs threw for a combined 4,603 yards & 33 touchdowns. But it's the Riders so naturally let's dismiss their play as subpar. The CFL was all abuzz about the way Joe Barnes & John Hufnagel played in 1981. Those guys carried a so so team on their backs all season. They finished 9-7 out of the playoffs as there was no crossover at that time.
They didn't make the playoffs. End of story. I didn't say their play was subpar....I said it was not a two headed monster worthy of mention as one of the great QB tandems. Has nothing to do with the RIders. Go get a Snickers if you're feeling pissy.
12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:Yes I remember every Roughrider game that I watched that year (and not all games were televised back then) the announcers were talking about "Barnagel". They were an effective one-two punch. The Bombers utilized Hufnagel in that capacity to some extent as well bringing in Huffer when Clements was struggling. The biggest example of that was the 1984 Grey Cup. I was always a fan of "mixing things up".
I think that Clements and Huffer tandem was a far better tandem than Barnagel. Just my opinion.
-
41 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:
Still remember in 1981 when the Riders had Huffer and Joe Barnes as a two-headed monster at QB, the advent of "Barnagel" as it was called was especially dangerous with Joey Walters at SB.
Two headed monster or dangerous is a pretty generous description but I guess it was one of the few years in the 70's and 80's that the Riders finished above .500 so while not all that great compared to the rest of the CFL, it certainly was pretty good QBing by Rider standards.
-
3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:
I would love to see the cfl do in game advanced/specialized/charts/ngs stats in a few areas for the game of the week. Yards after contact, tackle depth, qb hurries/hits, player speeds, ball velocity, average separation, play/formation break downs charts, yards per target, tackle % etc.
it would cost too much to get that going for every game (since we barely had stats at all half of last year). But I don’t think it would be too much to have one more stats guy and the equipment with tsn to do it once a week.
It would certainly add to pre game, post game and half time segments.I wish CFLdb were still the site it used to be. Used to have all these advanced stats available.
-
6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
The best thing for collaros this year will be having streveler taking snaps and the coaches not being afraid to throw him in as a change up.
Absolutely. The big thing is that DCs will be scrambling to game plan for both guys and that's hard to do because what they bring to the table is very different. It will be very difficult ask for any DC to formulate, and then implement a shut down defensive game plan for Collaros and Strev in the course of a few days. This will allow us to exploit defences a little more. I expect Zac, a very cerebral QB, to be able to operate at a very high efficiency level against the league this year.
-
On 2024-03-08 at 8:34 PM, wbbfan said:
It can be, or it can not be. Hefney for instance wasn’t a S, but put up a lot of tackles while being one of the very best dbs in the league. You can’t evaluate tackles in a vacuum.
I broke down in depth the difference between awes tackles and biggies tackles last year. Awe put up more tackles head to head, but was making tackles on average almost 10 yards from the line. Where as biggies average depth was under 4. Or like maruo leading us in teams tackles then getting benched for the year.
Tackles are the worst individual stat in football and maybe all of sports.6’3 180 guy productive in his one year at wku. Also scored a td on a hand full of punt returns. It’s not easy to walk into a new team as a wr and be that productive.
Tackle stats require a lot of context for sure.
On 2024-03-09 at 8:49 AM, 17to85 said:Tackles and +/-... worst in all sports because they need a hell of a lot of context to tell you anything.
I agree. Like most stats a deeper dive should usually be done. I do agree that the two you singled out are big time proof of that.
Dru Brown
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted · Edited by GCn20
Ottawa was a 5-11 team not a 3 win team that in last half of the season had brought in a new QB named JC Watts that was playing some really good ball. They beat an 11-4-1 Hamilton TIcat club to get there. That does not mean that the Riders would have, The East was no cakewalk at the top. Hamilton was very, very good and led by Tom Clements and Ben Zambiasi on defence. Obviously Hamilton crapped the bed against Ottawa with Watts running style giving them fits all game. Riders with two pocket QBs would likely have been creamed.
At the end of the day JJ Barnagel had a head to head matchup with the BC Lions for 3rd place overall in the CFL at stake in their final game of the season. They scored 5 points that game, lost and were eliminated from the playoffs. Context does matter.