Blake Sims

[D-Gap-Willie]

I know some NFL teams wanted him to switch positions. I'd love to see a very mobile qb be developed by us. Unless we lose him to Ottawa or something a few years in.

I'm surprised to hear that some NFL teams wanted him to switch positions - I had not heard that. He was not a very good RB at Alabama - small - -short and 205 lb - - not very fast (4.57).

Can he be a mobile QB in the CFL ? This is a complete unknown as far as the definition of mobile in the Argo's present offence, which would be mostly evading tackles. He has shown the ability to evade tackles (very quick feet) and improvise a little. However, we must remember that we are talking about a ONE year track record with the Tide, surrounded by a very talented offense, and running an under-centre, run fake/option offense. About all we can say right now is that he 'appears' to be a talented athlete.

[Rich]

Agreed but do you honestly think that right now that's Sims?

Didn't you read what I wrote? Who said anything about "right now"? I said we should groom him so that he can compete for the starter's job in 2016.

There's no way in hell Sims should start anytime soon. He'll need a year to acclimate himself to the country and the game and the league and especially to his teammates. He's got a year to prove what a great team guy he is. Here's what Nick Saban had to say about him:

“Lane and all the coaches did a great job with the guy but at the same time, you've got to give the kid some credit,” Saban said of Sims. “He is a great example of perseverance, overcoming adversity. Always put the team first." They need more Blake Simses, the coach noted, not necessarily because of dual-threat abilities but for the way he subjugated his ego.

That article is a must-read. This guy is no "hotshot". He's a leadership-type with great skills and puts the team first. Unless Harris/Ray takes us to 12-6 and a Grey Cup, why wouldn't we give Blake Sims every opportunity to compete for the starter's job in 2016 ?.

[Argo57]

Didn't you read what I wrote? Who said anything about "right now"? I said we should groom him so that he can compete for the starter's job in 2016.

There's no way in hell Sims should start anytime soon. He'll need a year to acclimate himself to the country and the game and the league and especially to his teammates. He's got a year to prove what a great team guy he is. Here's what Nick Saban had to say about him:



That article is a must-read. This guy is no "hotshot". He's a leadership-type with great skills and puts the team first. Unless Harris/Ray takes us to 12-6 and a Grey Cup, why wouldn't we give Blake Sims every opportunity to compete for the starter's job in 2016 ?.

Smartest thing Barker could do is bring in as many QB prospects as possible (to which he has done a good job).
Despite some fans eternal optimism truth is Ray probably has 1-2 years max left in the league (assuming a full recovery and no further injury).
Can't see him getting the type of contract he currently has moving forward besides he doesn't seem the type to want to stay around if not competing at the highest level. It will all play out this season.
When he does stop playing to me he seems like a great coaching candidate as well and the type of guy you would love to have around in the organization in a meaningful role.
Trust me I am not writing him off by any means but Toronto should (and does) have plan B at the ready.

[1argoholic]

Thanks for posting that link to the Saban article. Good read and to hear that this young man seems like all class. Looks like we MIGHT have found our next Holloway. By that I mean a great qb that was over looked and in some ways disrespected by the NFL. If he could pan out to be a fraction of Holloway I'd be thrilled. I loved Holloway.

Barker does have a way in finding talent. I would suggest that he's had more work to do in filling spots as the Argos GM than any other GM other than Ottawa obviously. It seems like Barker has to replace at least 10 players a year due to NFL interests, free agent loses, retirement, etc.

[ArgoGabe22]

Let's wait and see if Blake Sims will even make the team or be even willing enough to accept a PR spot before we call him "the future".

[doubleblue]

Thanks for posting that link to the Saban article. Good read and to hear that this young man seems like all class. Looks like we MIGHT have found our next Holloway. By that I mean a great qb that was over looked and in some ways disrespected by the NFL. If he could pan out to be a fraction of Holloway I'd be thrilled. I loved Holloway.

Barker does have a way in finding talent. I would suggest that he's had more work to do in filling spots as the Argos GM than any other GM other than Ottawa obviously. It seems like Barker has to replace at least 10 players a year due to NFL interests, free agent loses, retirement, etc.

Maybe it is because the Coaches have made the offenses so complicated now, but US College QB's can't seem to come in a play right away anymore. Players like Holloway, Clements, Theismann, JC Watts, Gabler, Allen, Dunnigan etc. played and played well their first years in the League back then. One thing they did have back then was longer training camps and 4 exhibition games. Maybe those guys were just more talented. I would like to think that Russell Wilson could have played in his first year if he had come to the CFL. He would have been in the CFL if had come out in that era because of his height.

[ArgoRavi]

Maybe it is because the Coaches have made the offenses so complicated now, but US College QB's can't seem to come in a play right away anymore. Players like Holloway, Clements, Theismann, JC Watts, Gabler, Allen, Dunnigan etc. played and played well their first years in the League back then. One thing they did have back then was longer training camps and 4 exhibition games. Maybe those guys were just more talented. I would like to think that Russell Wilson could have played in his first year if he had come to the CFL. He would have been in the CFL if had come out in that era because of his height.

Defences are much more complicated now than they were back in the 1970s and 1980s. Dunigan backed up Warren Moon for a year before he became the starter in Edmonton. Allen did have at least one start that I can recall in his rookie season in '85. In fact, Allen beat Joe Barnes and the Concordes quite handily in his first ever start. Sean Salisbury won a Grey Cup as a rookie in '88 but had a very strong defence behind him.

[doubleblue]

Defences are much more complicated now than they were back in the 1970s and 1980s. Dunigan backed up Warren Moon for a year before he became the starter in Edmonton. Allen did have at least one start that I can recall in his rookie season in '85. In fact, Allen beat Joe Barnes and the Concordes quite handily in his first ever start. Sean Salisbury won a Grey Cup as a rookie in '88 but had a very strong defence behind him.

I think Salisbury played in the NFL before going to Winnipeg. I was thinking of QB's right out of College.

[OV Argo]

Maybe it is because the Coaches have made the offenses so complicated now, but US College QB's can't seem to come in a play right away anymore. Players like Holloway, Clements, Theismann, JC Watts, Gabler, Allen, Dunnigan etc. played and played well their first years in the League back then. One thing they did have back then was longer training camps and 4 exhibition games. Maybe those guys were just more talented. I would like to think that Russell Wilson could have played in his first year if he had come to the CFL. He would have been in the CFL if had come out in that era because of his height.

Well - we've gone over this before - but, IMO - the notion that CFL offences are more "complicated" now is nonsense. If anything they are more standard and predictable than they've ever been: same old basic 5 pack formation with the same look - mostly pass offence and a lot of dink& dunk stuff and not much deep passing; one standard run play and usually little to no faith in an applied or consistent ground game; QB always in shot-gun; no real consistent use of a tight end or a fullback = little variety, little imagination, predictable and often boring. IF some think a pass play where the receivers don't even have a set pattern but are "reading" the D to tell them where to go = "complicated" - Ok , whatever.

Defences facing same old standard offence means they know what is coming and can have an easier time defending it; and expecting rookie of young or back-up QBs to execute a mostly pass offence with little run game support and little diversity is asking for trouble. Not at all surprising to me that some CFL offences have been struggling lately with young or not good enough QBs running a same old offences that Ds can key on.

Some of you who believe CFL offence now are more complicated show really review some tape/film of CFL offences from the 60s or 70s or at least into the 80s = way more diversity on offence with lots of different looks - wayyyyyyyyy more ground game - sweeps, draws, counters, big fullback pounding the ball up the middle; and more diversity in the passing game - more deep throws, throws down the seam to a big tight end or slotback, swing passes or screens to a RB or fullback. And hiring or recycling same old offensive thinkers as coaches who only know or believe in standard look CFL offence now contribues to / makes this situation more glaring. Be very interesting to see what BC does on offence with Tedford this season - he is a former CFL guy and i wouldn't be surprised to see him taking cue from Wally to go same old, but you never know. A fresh new offensive thinker as HC or OC might do wonders for increasing CFL offensive diversity & interest IMO - not holding my breath there though.

Maybe Sims could get a chance as a Tracy Ham type running/scrambling QB who is also a decent passer; give him big run game support like Ham had with Edmonton, |Baltimore and Montreal and let him do damage with his legs mixed in with some smart pass plays. Love to see one of those type CFL QBs again just for the sake of some variety or diversity alone in a small, same old league, run by ...

[doubleblue]

Telford is the guy along with Hufnagel who gets credit for practically eliminating the TE and FB positions in favour of 5 receivers and one set back. QB in the short punt formation (that's how I remember the annoucers describing it). We are seeing that more and more in the NFL now as well.
I agree it would be easier for a young QB to have a FB in the backfield along with the RB and use more play action. I don't know if that style of Football will ever come back but unfortunately I doubt it. The old counter plays with two RB's and a TE was the Football I played. Split end, flanker and a slotback. No Waggle. Man that was boring Football. lol

[Argo57]

OV makes some great points, back in the 70's and 80's each team seemed to have their own unique offensive style.
IMO a large part of that was the fact that most of the QB's called their own games rather than having the coaches call the games. Switch any teams uniforms and the plays and style of plays are pretty much identical.
Still maintain that many coaches use the "we run a complex offence" bullshit to pump their own tires.
Holloway, Brock, Barnes, Dewalt, Paopao, Clements, Hufnagel and the like had their own distinct style and it was truly great to watch.......it's called variety folks which sadly is missing in today's CFL.

[Rich]

Let's wait and see if Blake Sims will even make the team or be even willing enough to accept a PR spot before we call him "the future".

Well you can't groom a guy if he's on the PR. He's got to be in uniform on the sidelines all season learning everything that's going on. He's going to need some practice reps with the 1st team starters, and hopefully he can get some mop-up work when the Argos get some big leads this year.

He's got to perform well enough in camp and the pre-season to pass Kilgore on the depth chart, and when Ray comes back he's got to pass Gale too.

[D-Gap-Willie]

OV makes some great points, back in the 70's and 80's each team seemed to have their own unique offensive style.
IMO a large part of that was the fact that most of the QB's called their own games rather than having the coaches call the games. Switch any teams uniforms and the plays and style of plays are pretty much identical.
Still maintain that many coaches use the "we run a complex offence" bullshit to pump their own tires.
Holloway, Brock, Barnes, Dewalt, Paopao, Clements, Hufnagel and the like had their own distinct style and it was truly great to watch.......it's called variety folks which sadly is missing in today's CFL.

You, OV and doubleblue are all headed in the same direction. It's called individuality, and making full use of one's abilities within the boundaries of the team's system. In no way are today's offensive schemes more complex than those of decades ago, They are much more detailed, specifying every slight move that a player needs to make, but that is not more complex. The offensive schemes of today are detailed to the highest degree, in order to try to robotize the players actions. This is not complexity. This is a continuing effort by today's coaches to 'micromanage' the offence, which results in boring predictable offence, with no room for individual creativity and talent.

I'm not suggesting that we revert to 'street football' like calling a play to "run a hook behind the old chevy", but detailing every read, every step and plant that a receiver is allowed to make only stifles creativity and talent. This is a technique called rote learning that educators of the world are trying to abolish. It's time that the coaches made an attempt to develop systems that allow players to think and play - not to just follow the programmed steps. After all, most players are reasonably smart guys.

[paulwoods13]

It's time that the coaches made an attempt to develop systems that allow players to think and play - not to just follow the programmed steps.

But that is precisely what offensive players are required to do now: see what is happening and make a choice -- based on conscious thought -- about what to do to counter that. The whole nature of offence since the Run and Shoot came in in 1982 is to read and react. Prior to that, pass and blocking patterns were predefined and fulfilled regardless -- (e.g.) run a 10-yard out. Period. I agree football has become vastly overcoached but that genie ain't going back in the bottle. I think if a team tried to run an offence similar to what was being run in 1975 around the league, it would get nowhere against the defensive schemes now used. Sure there might be more of an effort to run the ball, as there was back then, but a succession of off-tackle runs and sweeps would work only so long. My opinion is nothing more than an opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove the theory, however.

[doubleblue]

I think the last QB that was allowed to think for himself and call his own plays was Doug Flutie. Don Mathews was smart enough to let him do it his way with great results. If Buffalo would have allowed Flutie the same leeway they would have had much better results. Not everybody is a Doug Flutie but a veteran QB will see and know things that will work at a given time where a OC up in the booth doesn't always have that feel for the game IMO.

[D-Gap-Willie]

But that is precisely what offensive players are required to do now: see what is happening and make a choice -- based on conscious thought -- about what to do to counter that. The whole nature of offence since the Run and Shoot came in in 1982 is to read and react. Prior to that, pass and blocking patterns were predefined and fulfilled regardless -- (e.g.) run a 10-yard out. Period. I agree football has become vastly overcoached but that genie ain't going back in the bottle. I think if a team tried to run an offence similar to what was being run in 1975 around the league, it would get nowhere against the defensive schemes now used. Sure there might be more of an effort to run the ball, as there was back then, but a succession of off-tackle runs and sweeps would work only so long. My opinion is nothing more than an opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove the theory, however.

Indeed that is what "what offensive players are required to do now: see what is happening and make a choice -- based on conscious thought -- about what to do to counter that". I however completely disagree that they make a choice based on conscious thought in today's offensive schemes. They make a choice according to the list of reads/choices that they have learned by rote -- there is no conscious thought - the scheme is God and must be obeyed. I disagree that a more freestyle, freethinking offence would not succeed - it would totally confuse today's defenses who are similarly programmed with expected reactions. However, as you say there is no way to prove or disprove the success or failure of micromanaging - it is not about to change -- pity !

[Argo57]

I think the last QB that was allowed to think for himself and call his own plays was Doug Flutie. Don Mathews was smart enough to let him do it his way with great results. If Buffalo would have allowed Flutie the same leeway they would have had much better results. Not everybody is a Doug Flutie but a veteran QB will see and know things that will work at a given time where a OC up in the booth doesn't always have that feel for the game IMO.

Flute was the master of the improve, always looked like he was cooking something up in the huddle, those teams (96 and 97) were stacked with talent, helped to have Robert Drummond coming out of the backfield as well to give the defences something else to worry about.

[AngeloV]

Well - we've gone over this before - but, IMO - the notion that CFL offences are more "complicated" now is nonsense. If anything they are more standard and predictable than they've ever been: same old basic 5 pack formation with the same look - mostly pass offence and a lot of dink& dunk stuff and not much deep passing;

Actually despite the fact that most of the formations today are similar, it is much more complicated than it used to be. Offences used to run a play as designed back then Whether it was the initial play call or an audible, the final play call was run the way it was designed. Today, their are more options after the snap then there used to be, and QB's and receivers both have to make the same sight adjustments in play. For that reason, it is way more complicated to be a QB today.

[ArgoRavi]

Actually despite the fact that most of the formations today are similar, it is much more complicated than it used to be. Offences used to run a play as designed back then Whether it was the initial play call or an audible, the final play call was run the way it was designed. Today, their are more options after the snap then there used to be, and QB's and receivers both have to make the same sight adjustments in play. For that reason, it is way more complicated to be a QB today.

I recall reading an article a couple of years ago in which Bob O'Billovich was interviewed after he watched a replay of the 1972 Grey Cup between Saskatchewan and Hamilton. He was remarking and laughing about how simple the offences were back then and this is a guy who played and coached in the league in the 1960s and 1970s.

[AngeloV]

I recall reading an article a couple of years ago in which Bob O'Billovich was interviewed after he watched a replay of the 1972 Grey Cup between Saskatchewan and Hamilton. He was remarking and laughing about how simple the offences were back then and this is a guy who played and coached in the league in the 1960s and 1970s.

Yes, but also a member of the good ol' boys club.