June 20, 2013: Montreal Alouettes vs. Toronto Argonauts

[Rich]

I have looked back at the game thread for the game you speak and do not see a post by Mr. Woods that is critical of Collaros. If you are going to call out a member on something he said in November you at least have to provide some sort of link to the post that you say that he said those things.

"Poo-pooed" doesn't mean he was critical of Collaros. But he dismissed Collaros' great performance that night because it was against a weak defence.

Paul's an honourable guy. He knows what he said. Let him answer for himself.

[Will]

"Poo-pooed" doesn't mean he was critical of Collaros. But he dismissed Collaros' great performance that night because it was against a weak defence.

Paul's an honourable guy. He knows what he said. Let him answer for himself.

With all due respect you made the accusation.

[paulwoods13]

I'm happy to respond, and I appreciate the suggestion that I'm honourable, too!

I have not gone back to review previous threads but believe what I wrote at various times was:

1. Collaros looked very good against Hamilton last season, but their defence was terrible and not too much should be read into either his or Harris's performance that day. I stand by that.

2. I was very uncomfortable with the idea of going into this season with no experienced backups, and I wasn't prepared to embrace either Collaros or Harris as capable replacements for RR based on one game against a terrible defence.

Obviously, the coaching staff did not share my desire for an experienced backup, so we are going into the season with either H or C as No. 2. Based on what I saw last night, I think C played better. To be honest I spent almost no time observing Montreal's personnel, and I did not have a list of their players with me, so I cannot confirm that C played against third-stringers although it stands to reason he probably faced more scrubs than Harris did. How much that should factor into my evaluation I can't say, but it seems like a fair point. The good news is that given Popp's personnel history, chances are Mtl's entire third-string defence last night might have posed more of a test than Hamilton's first-stringers did last November. So it appears I can breathe a little easier about the state of our backups. Having said that, I'd still feel far more comfortable with our ability to repeat if we had a backup QB who had faced serious defences in real game situations.

I think it's also fair to suggest (without checking to verify) that I have always said I hoped either H or C would prove my fears wrong.

[Ballstothewall]

The other HB got (Bryan) got injured too? That's some bad luck right there. Bluto said he felt that the penalty on Mitchell was BS. If that goes uncalled the Argos have an extremely successful evening against Calvillo. The downfield coverage wasn't even that bad on the rest of the drive I don't think, but Calvillo's checkdown options were pretty much wide open with plenty of space to run. The Argo defender also slipped on the turf on Bruce's TD. The Argos did a whole lot of slipping on the turf yesterday, but it didn't seem to affect Montreal as such.

The Varsity experience wasn't bad. The stadium doesn't have many amenities, but I wasn't expecting a whole lot from it in that regard for the pre-season game. I'm sorry but I have to say it that it doesn't look particularly good that the Argos couldn't sell out this game or that there were empty seats. I know it's pre-season but still... I thought we were going to end up with no PA announcer, but Landry finally started and did a great job.

If all the people on the track took a seat, it was more then sold out

[Rich]

1. Collaros looked very good against Hamilton last season, but their defence was terrible and not too much should be read into either his or Harris's performance that day. I stand by that.

There are 25 categories for team defence stats on cfl.ca. Last season the Hamilton defence was last or second last in 19 of 25 categories. But the Edmonton defence was last or second last in 14 out of 25 categories. They were pretty bad also. Does this mean we should dismiss, but just a bit less, any offensive accomplishments against Edmonton, too? What about Winnipeg, their D sucked pretty bad as well. Maybe we should only count any offensive success against BC as a worthy accomplishment.

Hamilton had a terrible D last year but they did come up with some big plays as a unit, and they did play some good quarters of football, otherwise the team would not have won 6 games. Football is all about coming up with big plays in big situations. Again, if that Hamilton D was ever going to play its hardest, and play its best, it would be in the last quarter of the last game in which they were scratching and clawing for their playoff lives.

That's why, IMO, what Collaros did in the Hamilton game, as a raw rookie, was more impressive than what he did last night. Actually I was a little disappointed in his play last night, other than the beauty toss to Iggy. I believe Collaros can play a lot better than that in this league.

[paulwoods13]

There are 25 categories for team defence stats on cfl.ca. Last season the Hamilton defence was last or second last in 19 of 25 categories. But the Edmonton defence was last or second last in 14 out of 25 categories. They were pretty bad also. Does this mean we should dismiss, but just a bit less, any offensive accomplishments against Edmonton, too? What about Winnipeg, their D sucked pretty bad as well. Maybe we should only count any offensive success against BC as a worthy accomplishment.

Hamilton had a terrible D last year but they did come up with some big plays as a unit, and they did play some good quarters of football, otherwise the team would not have won 6 games. Football is all about coming up with big plays in big situations. Again, if that Hamilton D was ever going to play its hardest, and play its best, it would be in the last quarter of the last game in which they were scratching and clawing for their playoff lives.

That's why, IMO, what Collaros did in the Hamilton game, as a raw rookie, was more impressive than what he did last night. Actually I was a little disappointed in his play last night, other than the beauty toss to Iggy. I believe Collaros can play a lot better than that in this league.

As I said before, Collaros and Harris looked pretty good against Hamilton last year. But I was not then, and am still not, prepared to draw any major conclusions on their long-term potential based on one game against a bad defence. I wouldn't even do so based on one game against a good defence. Anyone remember Quinton Porter throwing for 400-plus yards in his debut against the Alouettes? Seemed like the next superstar; didn't work out that way. And I also believe that if one were to pronounce Collaros's "raw rookie" performance against Hamilton as impressive, one might also make the same statement about Harris, who also did some good things in that game.