Forde's assessment of Canadian content (Toronto & the league)

[Wobbler]

As collected from all of the TSN individual team previews:

Calgary: A+
Hamilton: A
Montreal: A
Saskatchewan: B+
Toronto: B
Edmonton: B
B.C.: B-
Winnipeg: C
Ottawa: C

If our Canadian content is merely average, the overall quality of NAT starters in the league must be very good. We don't have the best Canadian *depth*, but I think most of our starters (8 by my count) are excellent.

[R.J]

I'm surprised that Winnipeg was rated so low, I'd easily put them above the Lions and Riders. Argos seem low as well, top three team IMO, below Calgary and Hamilton obviously.

My list
1. Calgary
2. Hamilton
3. Toronto
4. Edmonton
5. Winnipeg
6. Montreal
7. B.C
8. Saskatchewan
9. Ottawa

[1argoholic]

Nothing wrong with a solid B. That's the way I thought in school at least.

[gilthethrill]

Nothing wrong with a solid B. That's the way I thought in school at least.

Me too....however I rarely achieved them!!!!

[OV Argo]

Forde is wrong about Ottawa IMO = they have some of the best young Canadian talent in the league: a potential top notch interior O-line (Gott, MacMillan (very strong as a rookie starter last year IMO), and 1st overall draft pick Mateas); a couple or few pretty decent NI receivers in Sinopoli, Macdonnell and Carter, and they use Canadians at the H-back position a lot more than any other team in the league (at least they did last season - not sure this year with all the new import receivers); plus a couple of stud type starters on D in Capicotti at DE and Pruneau at OLB, and they can play 2 NI starters at DT in Sholgan & Evans with lots of young depth guys at DE & DT.

My list: Calgary clearly at 1st (mostly because of Cornish and the O-line - they barely play any NIs on D); then a bunch of teams around the same (Hamilton, Riders, Als, Ottawa, Argos) tied for 2nd sort of; with the Esks, BC and Winnipeg bringing up the rear. Wally's Lions would be dead last if not for Harris at RB.

[Wobbler]

I don't see what's so extraordinary about Calgary's Canadian content. Cornish is excellent, of course, but with the loss of Jones their OL doesn't look remarkable to me. Overall they might be a little better than our group, but that's about it IMHO.

[OV Argo]

I don't see what's so extraordinary about Calgary's Canadian content. Cornish is excellent, of course, but with the loss of Jones their OL doesn't look remarkable to me. Overall they might be a little better than our group, but that's about it IMHO.

The Stamps have around 7 NI O-linemen who have started for them before, even with the loss of Jones; they also have Cornish (best RB in the league by far) backed up by another good one in Walter; they have some good young receiver talent (IMO) in Charbonneau-Campeau and Anthony Parker and just added Lemar Durant (who has one of the best CFL draft receiver resumes in years if not decades IMO), plus they get some good use out of a Canadian H-back in Rob Cote = they have lots of NI players who have shown they can play in the CFL on offence. On D - they only play one NI basically - at DT - but they have 3 capable guys to man that position. And they have a lot of other young NIs who have excelled on special teams and have very good college ball resumes as position players. They have held on to and added many draft picks and they stockpile and keep around NI talent.


IF - the Argos D features Gabriel, Foley, Greenwood and Laing/Waud all starting/playing lots and they are all impact players on the D this season, then the Argos should be in the conversation for top Canadian talent in the league; even if it is only 3 interior O-linemen + Durie as the regulars on O.

[jerrym]

I don't see what's so extraordinary about Calgary's Canadian content. Cornish is excellent, of course, but with the loss of Jones their OL doesn't look remarkable to me. Overall they might be a little better than our group, but that's about it IMHO.

Cornish has been and will be superlative, providing he's overcome the ongoing concussion problem he had last year. With concussions, that's a big if.