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.
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.
Bookmarks