GAME THREAD / Lucky Week 13 / Edmonton @ Toronto

Like most on here I was reaĺly happy to see a run game emerge. And I hope that it wasn't just a one off lucky game. Something about Wilder doesn't strike me as explosive running back capable of breaking big gainers like a Kackert. That big run he had was due to good blocking and Edmonton defence shifted to strong side for the pass. Where he excelled last game was the punishing run over people for 6 yards. That seemed to be missing until last week. Hopefully he brings it every game like the great RBS do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

Here is my original point;

A lot more football to be played, but it's nice to see a younger back step up for us. It seems like a long time since we've had a dominant running game like that (Boyd, Kackert).

Brandon Whitaker is 32 and wasn't a priority re-signing in the off season. I actually think the team had designs of a Kendall Hunter/ James Wilder backfield going in.
At 32 the digression is not only predictable, but nearly certain. He's a fantastic player and team-mate and I doubt he's sung his last song yet, but it's essential for this team to progress with an eye on the long term plan.

O.Lineman generally won't look very good (nor will an offense) if all you do is pass protect. Especially with an immobile QB who is in his mid 30's and hasn't been able to stretch the D. That's a recipe for the infirmary. This new dimension will help and if they can keep the ball rolling could jell this team into a contender.

We may see Colaros and Ray in tandem towards the end of the season.

Most important, as I see it, is the long term plan. Wilder checks that box in that part of the field.

Well, that wasn't too outlandish now was it? And the rebuttal seems (to me) to be a stretch. It brushes off my statement with the implication that CFL GM's don't have master plans, which IMHO, is rubbish. I interjected humour to move on. We don't want a humourless board now do we? I have re-read my post several times and I can't really find issue with this original statement. But I guess someone can pick, if they feel like it.

If there is something I said here that seems way off base, Wobbler, go ahead and flame away. But do me a favour, before you come running to one of the old boys defense (which is sadly predictable in this little forum) please read the original thread through for an unbiased understanding. Us interlopers are not all bad, and we are knowledgeable fans too. Unless of course I am trespassing? Thank you.

---

Your original point mentioned contracts up to 3-4 years in length. Now, you have excluded that point - which Angelo was referring to. I don't see a problem with disputing that long term contracts are no longer the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

I don't think any GM makes long-term plans around young INT players. All of them aspire to move from the five-figure CFL to the six-figure NFL, several actually try every year and a few successfully make the jump. Unless you can persuade a guy to sign a first contract longer than two years, making long-term plans involving specific individual players who are new to the league would be a recipe for disappointment. Once you get a guy signed to a second contract, it makes more sense to see them as part of you team's future. But I reckon most if not all GMs view most players (apart from QBs and NAT starters) as fairly easy to replace.

---

Yes, but Paul there is a reason a team like Calgary contends every year. Look at how long their key Int vets stay. It's a solid question is it not? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArgoGabe22

Your original point mentioned contracts up to 3-4 years in length. Now, you have excluded that point - which Angelo was referring to. I don't see a problem with disputing that long term contracts are no longer the norm.

---

I omitted nothing. That is the original post, verbatim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scooter McCray

Like most on here I was reaĺly happy to see a run game emerge. And I hope that it wasn't just a one off lucky game. Something about Wilder doesn't strike me as explosive running back capable of breaking big gainers like a Kackert. That big run he had was due to good blocking and Edmonton defence shifted to strong side for the pass. Where he excelled last game was the punishing run over people for 6 yards. That seemed to be missing until last week. Hopefully he brings it every game like the great RBS do.

---

I found that his upright style makes it easier for defenders to tackle to be honest. He's almost too much of a target. That's why Pringle types are so hard to tackle. They are like muscle balls.

Fenerty played a few years with the Saints after he left the Argos following the 1989 season. I didn't realize he had played in the NFL before coming to Toronto. Cedric Minter played a year or two for the New York Jets before coming back to Toronto for the 1986 season where ironically the arrival of Fenerty made him expendable and he was traded for Gilbert Renfroe.

Pringle's problem in the NFL was presumably signing with the Broncos. No chance he was uprooting Terrell Davis from the starting job on that team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

I omitted nothing. That is the original post, verbatim.

---

Ok, well your second post mentioned it which I saw Angelo reply to, in which you replied back, and the saw Wobbler reply to your response. Point is, what is so bad with disputing contract lengths and asking for the last contract that was actually 2+ years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

Yes, but Paul there is a reason a team like Calgary contends every year. Look at how long their key Int vets stay. It's a solid question is it not? Why?

---

I think it's fairly clear that there are many reasons Calgary contends every year. One of those reasons is relatively low turnover. But they have lost players to the NFL and free agency just as others have. I don't believe the key to their success is that they do long-term planning and others don't, or that Calgary's long-term planning is smarter and better than other teams'. I think that would be an over-simplification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

I don't think any GM makes long-term plans around young INT players. All of them aspire to move from the five-figure CFL to the six-figure NFL, several actually try every year and a few successfully make the jump. Unless you can persuade a guy to sign a first contract longer than two years, making long-term plans involving specific individual players who are new to the league would be a recipe for disappointment. Once you get a guy signed to a second contract, it makes more sense to see them as part of you team's future. But I reckon most if not all GMs view most players (apart from QBs and NAT starters) as fairly easy to replace.

---

My guess is that players themselves, as well as their agents are reluctant to sign any deal longer than 1 or 2 years these days. With contracts not guaranteed, there is absolutely no incentive to do so. They are not protected against injury, or an off season by doing this.

For the record, I never said that trying to get long term stability is a bad thing. I just don't believe it is really doable. All GM's need to play for today, because the way the league is now, nobody has any clue what they will have tomorrow. That includes the draft. Unlike in hockey or baseball, teams do not retain rights after an entry level contract.

To me, the league should put in something that will allow teams to keep their own free agents. Maybe something like if a free agent re-signs with their own team, 10 or 15% of that contract would not count against the cap. That would allow teams to pay more in order to keep their own. Everybody wins in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngeloV

To me, the league should put in something that will allow teams to keep their own free agents. Maybe something like if a free agent re-signs with their own team, 10 or 15% of that contract would not count against the cap. That would allow teams to pay more in order to keep their own. Everybody wins in this scenario.

---

Good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulwoods13

I think it's fairly clear that there are many reasons Calgary contends every year. One of those reasons is relatively low turnover. But they have lost players to the NFL and free agency just as others have. I don't believe the key to their success is that they do long-term planning and others don't, or that Calgary's long-term planning is smarter and better than other teams'. I think that would be an over-simplification.

---

Stampeders are very good at recruiting players to fit their system(s), players are also drawn to successful programs to which success breeds success.
Hufnagel and his staff have done a great job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Argo57

Stampeders are very good at recruiting players to fit their system(s), players are also drawn to successful programs to which success breeds success.
Hufnagel and his staff have done a great job!

---

And they tend to stay on....which is good for continuity and a successful application of a long range plan, which is good for the team, which is good for results, which is good for the fans and good for the league.

Jim Barker's undoing was getting away from continuity, cos when he had it, the Argos won. We've seen this time and time again in this league. It's an unstable league, but those who can be 'less unstable' tend to have the most success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Argo57

Stampeders are very good at recruiting players to fit their system(s), players are also drawn to successful programs to which success breeds success.
Hufnagel and his staff have done a great job!

---

This is what it's all about, longer-term planning is all about the next man up at every position. Jim Popp should already be looking for another big, strong, athletic RB who can catch, bring him in next year to learn the system in case Wilder bolts in 2019. I'm tired of all these tiny little scatbacks the Argos bring into TC every season. You plan to have a certain kind of offence (and defence) year after year, and the plan either succeeds or fails largely because of the personnel.

Getting back to Wilder, I hung around a bit after the game and met Mrs. Wilder.
You can't miss her, in her #32 jersey. I happily congratulated her on her husband's
best game (so far) and wished her and James the best for the rest of the season. Nice lady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Gonzo

I found that his upright style makes it easier for defenders to tackle to be honest. He's almost too much of a target. That's why Pringle types are so hard to tackle. They are like muscle balls.

---

Eric Dickerson and Robert Drummond are 2 very successful backs in different leagues that had an upright running style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al&Kat

Getting back to Wilder, I hung around a bit after the game and met Mrs. Wilder.
You can't miss her, in her #32 jersey. I happily congratulated her on her husband's
best game (so far) and wished her and James the best for the rest of the season. Nice lady.

---

S.J. Green's wife has sat in my section for a few games this year. She is always there with her young son and daughter in tow.
They are all wearing Argos jerseys with #19 on them. "Mrs. Green", "Lil' SJ", and I can't remember the daughter's nameplate.
Handsome family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngeloV

Eric Dickerson and Robert Drummond are 2 very successful backs in different leagues that had an upright running style.

---

Cornish also ran upright, Messam as well come to think of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngeloV

Eric Dickerson and Robert Drummond are 2 very successful backs in different leagues that had an upright running style.

---

This is true and I would be very happy if this guy was even a quarter as good as those two. My point is, you certainly don't see it everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.J

Cornish also ran upright, Messam as well come to think of it.

---

Yes he did...made an easy target for Herberts high tackle.