2014: Semi-Finals

[ArgoRavi]

That's one thing I learned of the Boyd experience. ..... Now all RBs are judged by .... can they block?

You have to be the complete package to be a tailback in this league these days. In other words you have to be able to run, catch passes out of the backfield and block. Messam is a good runner but I am not sure that he is so good at the other two elements.

[OV Argo]

You have to be the complete package to be a tailback in this league these days. In other words you have to be able to run, catch passes out of the backfield and block. Messam is a good runner but I am not sure that he is so good at the other two elements.

So - the likes of Slaton, Grigsby, Chevron Walker, Stefan Logan, White for the Esks, or any of the Als tailbacks this year are very good all around CFL RBs who can block very well and catch too ??? - rubbish-
more like they are decent at 2 of 3 of those criteria at best, and maybe very good at one (like Logan); they do have American passports though which help get them CFL playing time.

[Argo57]

So - the likes of Slaton, Grigsby, Chevron Walker, Stefan Logan, White for the Esks, or any of the Als tailbacks this year are very good all around CFL RBs who can block very well and catch too ??? - rubbish-
more like they are decent at 2 of 3 of those criteria at best, and maybe very good at one (like Logan); they do have American passports though which help get them CFL playing time.

In truth OV all of those RB's you listed have glaring deficiencies in one or more parts of their game but they are American.
Watching the Penn St - Illinois game today the announcer seemed shocked that the Penn St starting RB Akeel Lynch was born in Toronto to paraphrase "Lynch is a pretty good running back who was born in Toronto, not where you would expect a running back to come from".

[Wobbler]

Not sure what you mean there with the irrelevant comparison to Ray's rushing numbers - Messam never played full-time at RB for the Riders, but when he did play some, he flashed some of his old form - a big, bruising tailback with impressive speed & moves for such a big back; could have been a nice compliment to a back like Slaton - that's maybe IF the offence was interested in lots of or a diverse ground game. And the point still is anyways - Messam was available for free...

My point was that he wasn't very productive. That's not surprising given that he wasn't an every down back and only played 11 games, but he didn't help Saskatchewan very much and he wouldn't have helped us much either. Sure he could have been a interesting change-of-pace back. Despite his weak blocking and poor receiving ability, he could have helped our offense a little. But the reason that I'm not upset that we didn't sign him is that he is useless on special teams. He might have been "free" in a sense, but he would have cost us a roster spot currently occupied by a backup who *can* contribute on special teams. Trying Messam would have been an interesting experiment (like the Dwight Anderson and Alex Suber experiments), but I disagree that failing to bring him in was a sign of foolishness.

[ArgoRavi]

So - the likes of Slaton, Grigsby, Chevron Walker, Stefan Logan, White for the Esks, or any of the Als tailbacks this year are very good all around CFL RBs who can block very well and catch too ??? - rubbish-
more like they are decent at 2 of 3 of those criteria at best, and maybe very good at one (like Logan); they do have American passports though which help get them CFL playing time.

Okay, maybe I should have said that you have to be able to do all three well to play in this Argo offence and, yes, Slaton is strong enough in all three of those areas. Messam would not have been a good fit and it has nothing to do with his birth certificate.

[AngeloV]

I compare Messam with Cory Boyd..except Canadian...a big bruisng back yes, but perhaps lacks in blocking capability. Would he have fit in the the Argo offence better than Boyd?

He also doesn't catch the ball very well. Boyd, did have good hands, just not a great route runner.

[OV Argo]

My point was that he wasn't very productive. That's not surprising given that he wasn't an every down back and only played 11 games, but he didn't help Saskatchewan very much and he wouldn't have helped us much either. Sure he could have been a interesting change-of-pace back. Despite his weak blocking and poor receiving ability, he could have helped our offense a little. But the reason that I'm not upset that we didn't sign him is that he is useless on special teams. He might have been "free" in a sense, but he would have cost us a roster spot currently occupied by a backup who *can* contribute on special teams. Trying Messam would have been an interesting experiment (like the Dwight Anderson and Alex Suber experiments), but I disagree that failing to bring him in was a sign of foolishness.

Just FYI - Messam did have19 carries for 126 yards in the one game where the Riders have gave him a real shot / lots of opportunity .

[paulwoods13]

Totally lost concept on the CFL offensive "minds" now though; but the good ole boys must be right, eh Ravi & Paul ? - a tight end as a regular part of a CFL offence now just couldn't work or be of any value - both as a receiving threat and a blocking force for the run game (what run game?). Lack of variety or diversity in CFL offences now i find just sad or lame or very questionable - but - to each his own opinion.

I agree tight ends would work in the CFL, and I'd like to see them return as a regular part of the package. That said, it is a fact that the current approach of one back, five receivers, no TEs or FBs has been in vogue for about three decades, and for about two and a half decades it was entertaining as hell. The fact it is dull now has a lot more causes than "ultra predictable, boring clique of same old thinkers."

[paulwoods13]

You just proved OV's point. What could be more stale and predictable than an offensive mindset that dates back to the mid-1980s?

Was it stale and predictable in the mid-1990s? Or the mid-2000s? The same mindset was in effect then. I found it entertaining.

[AngeloV]

I think in the last 15 years, we've had 2 coaches try and be "different" on offence in the CFL. John Huard and Mike Kelly. Anyone remember how their offences performed? Huard and the Argos with their TE and run oriented offence scored a huge victory in their first game, and once game tape was available, they got killed every game. Kelly's team was also easily shut down.

[doubleblue]

I agree tight ends would work in the CFL, and I'd like to see them return as a regular part of the package. That said, it is a fact that the current approach of one back, five receivers, no TEs or FBs has been in vogue for about three decades, and for about two and a half decades it was entertaining as hell. The fact it is dull now has a lot more causes than "ultra predictable, boring clique of same old thinkers."

I agree 100%. I would love to see a Coach with some imagination look for a big TE/RB who could be a difference maker on offence. Run for the tough yards, block for the smaller RB and QB and make those tough over the middle catches plus YAC yards afterwards. I'm not talking the Zander Robinson's of the world, but an athlete like Mike Sellers of the Bombers, who might have been the last type of player I have in mind. It would probably have to be an Import as these guys don't seem to grow on trees.

[1argoholic]

Well Barker did draft that Canadian TE from Rice who's now plays for Seattle. The guy the Jays also drafted. He's obviously a pretty good athlete. Oh his name escapes me.

[Argo57]

Well Barker did draft that Canadian TE from Rice who's now plays for Seattle. The guy the Jays also drafted. He's obviously a pretty good athlete. Oh his name escapes me.

Luke Willson

[ArgoRavi]

I think in the last 15 years, we've had 2 coaches try and be "different" on offence in the CFL. John Huard and Mike Kelly. Anyone remember how their offences performed? Huard and the Argos with their TE and run oriented offence scored a huge victory in their first game, and once game tape was available, they got killed every game. Kelly's team was also easily shut down.

Don Sutherin also tried to use an old-style offence at the beginning of the '97 season, with the use of tight ends, but it failed miserably on the way to a 2-16 season for the Ticats. If we want to look at CIS, Gary Etcheverry went back to a 1960s style Canadian football offence a couple of years ago at Ottawa U. and that was nothing short of a disaster.

[OV Argo]

Don Sutherin also tried to use an old-style offence at the beginning of the '97 season, with the use of tight ends, but it failed miserably on the way to a 2-16 season for the Ticats. If we want to look at CIS, Gary Etcheverry went back to a 1960s style Canadian football offence a couple of years ago at Ottawa U. and that was nothing short of a disaster.

NOBODY has tried a traditional single TE set as a regular CFL offence in decades - that is all = mention of Huard's limited double TE set or other limited use of some double TE sets (often an O-linemen in there or a fullback = not a real tight end) in a few CFL offences over the past couple of decades are basically IMO totally irrelevant to this discussion.

You like ALL offences in a 9 team running the same basic offence = good for you; i happen to like some variety or diversity in football - and that COULD include use of a real tight end set, a fullback or a double back offence with LOTS of ground game; NOT happening when same thinking good ole boy coaches are all who are hired to run CFL offences. Gotta love good ole boy current CFL offences with dink & dunk passes, tons of dropped passes, one basic run play and waggle off-sides galore though. LOL

[Rich]

Was it stale and predictable in the mid-1990s? Or the mid-2000s? The same mindset was in effect then. I found it entertaining.

That was then, this is now. Everything become stale and predictable over time, unless it changes. Defences find more and more ways to beat a system they've seen for 30 years. It's a cyclical thing. Judging from this year's offensive display, CFL good ol' boy groupthink has run it's course.

I'd like to see somebody try the pistol formation next year, I think it could work pretty well in this league.

[paulwoods13]

That was then, this is now. Everything become stale and predictable over time, unless it changes. Defences find more and more ways to beat a system they've seen for 30 years. It's a cyclical thing. Judging from this year's offensive display, CFL good ol' boy groupthink has run it's course.

I think groupthink accounts for part of the problem, but not all of it. There are many causes, including expanded rosters with more defensive specialists and substitutions, fewer traditional "CFL-style" QBs and receivers available, clock rule changes that have caused there to be fewer snaps in a game than 30 years ago, etc. We may be at a point where some serious rule modifications are needed to help the offences. I don't see any likelihood that we will be able to attract a lot of great tight ends to Canada, since TE is becoming increasingly important in the NFL. We could attract great RBs because their value in the NFL has never been lower, but in a three-down world I doubt any team will become run-dominant the way most teams were in the (much less entertaining, IMO) 1960s and '70s. But maybe someone will try it again.

[Rich]

I don't see any likelihood that we will be able to attract a lot of great tight ends to Canada, since TE is becoming increasingly important in the NFL. We could attract great RBs because their value in the NFL has never been lower

I don't understand this logic. NFL rosters usually carry 4 or 5 TEs and 4 or 5 (sometimes more) RBs. And regardless of position, there are many more very good football players coming out of college than there are open roster spots in the NFL. Why would it be any harder to get a very good TE than RB?

[paulwoods13]

I don't understand this logic. NFL rosters usually carry 4 or 5 TEs and 4 or 5 (sometimes more) RBs. And regardless of position, there are many more very good football players coming out of college than there are open roster spots in the NFL. Why would it be any harder to get a very good TE than RB?

Because there are more good RBs than TEs, IMO, and because the NFL is now a pass-first league where RBs are not as highly valued as they used to be. (I don't think most NFL rosters have four or five TEs or RBs, BTW. Maybe if you include practice rosters but I think the norm is to dress three of each.)