Power Rankings Week #15

Power Rankings

Interesting seeing how 2016 has played out and who is ascending and who are descending.

POWER RANKINGS
1. (1) Calgary
They will have to guard against complacency. Their next important game isn't until Nov. 20, the West Division final.
2. (5) Winnipeg
They beat the second best team in the league and still have second place in the West Division in their sights.
3. (2) B.C.
Questionable video reviews aside, the bottom line is the Lions weren't prepared and didn't do enough against the Bombers.
4. (4) Edmonton
Second in the West isn't out of the question. As long as Mike Reilly is flinging the pigskin, the Esks will never be out of it.
5. (3) Ottawa
A home loss to the Roughriders? Henry Burris is back as the starter? Chris Williams is done for the year? Tense times.
6. (7) Saskatchewan
The Roughriders are playing well, but they are also done after being eliminated from playoff contention on Monday.
7. (6) Hamilton
Zach Collaros is out with a concussion, and you never know which Jeremiah Masoli you're going to get. Tense times.
8. (8) Montreal
Here's a memo for Rakeem Cato: Throw the ball to Duron Carter a little more than you currently do. He's good.
9. (9) Toronto
Did Scott Milanovich really say the Argos were better without Vidal Hazelton, Tori Gurley and Kevin Elliott? They're not

This your own work?

Sorry, CFL Power Rankings on social media. I loved the remark about SM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1971GreyCup

Sorry, CFL Power Rankings on social media. I loved the remark about SM.

---

Except SM didn't say that the Argos would be better, he said they would be no worse. With those guys they lost by 27 points to a league's worst team. Without them, lost by 28 to the league's best. So was he wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argofan87

This your own work?

---

I believe it is the work of Kirk Penton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

Except SM didn't say that the Argos would be better, he said they would be no worse. With those guys they lost by 27 points to a league's worst team. Without them, lost by 28 to the league's best. So was he wrong?

---

Sorry, SM specifically said, "we're a better football team today". I heard him say that on Mike Hogan's radio show and repeated verbatim in front of the media. He doesn't get a pass on this one Paul.

I think I found this on Toronto Sun focusing on the challenges the Grey Cup faces in Toronto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1971GreyCup

Sorry, SM specifically said, "we're a better football team today". I heard him say that on Mike Hogan's radio show and repeated verbatim in front of the media. He doesn't get a pass on this one Paul.

---

Hate sounding like I'm always defending SM but I understood that comment to focus on the word "team". Might just be me but perhaps he didn't mean a more skilled team but a better team in regards to character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArgoGabe22

Hate sounding like I'm always defending SM but I understood that comment to focus on the word "team". Might just be me but perhaps he didn't mean a more skilled team but a better team in regards to character.

---

I am sorry, but he can put out a lineup of the finest of characters to walk this planet, but I put my money down to watch on field talent. Management and coaching are there to identify talent with character. Sign them and bring out the best in them. They were fine characters at 4-2, but bums at 4-9. Sorry, SM wears this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1971GreyCup

I am sorry, but he can put out a lineup of the finest of characters to walk this planet, but I put my money down to watch on field talent. Management and coaching are there to identify talent with character. Sign them and bring out the best in them. They were fine characters at 4-2, but bums at 4-9. Sorry, SM wears this one.

---

The only team that I know of who was both dysfunctional and successful were the 1994 Lions. They had a bad locker room and managed to win, just like the NY Mets in the 80's. But it is rare. Most teams do not want to build around players with questionable character, if you want to call it that. I just don't understand why not make the move earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArgoGabe22

The only team that I know of who was both dysfunctional and successful were the 1994 Lions. They had a bad locker room and managed to win, just like the NY Mets in the 80's. But it is rare. Most teams do not want to build around players with questionable character, if you want to call it that. I just don't understand why not make the move earlier.

---

I am sorry, but I would be very careful to cast these players as questionable character. SM did just that and the following day to the high road after cutting them saying he didn't want to say anything because the players had families. I just don't buy it.

Regarding the character issue, I suppose time will tell.

Whether he said "better" or "no worse," the only evidence we have is one game where they were no worse than the previous week, and arguably better. Perhaps it makes sense to wait more than one week before declaring it a failure?

Paul, then maybe then I can say three other CFL teams are better off this week? They certainly are not worse off.

I recall when Raymond was released, many made much of the fact that he wasn't immediately picked up by other CFL team and this seemed to be vindication of the Argos decision. Clearly Raymond then as either diminished ability or he was a problem in the locker.

This time the character assassination continues, even though all were immediately picked up and all may start this weekend. No double standard? The apologists seem to be pretty quiet on this one.

Maybe we seem no worse off, because we didn't get to the source of the problem?? Maybe SM team is a better team after releasing these players, just not good enough to beat any of the other 8 CFL teams.