Ricky Ray time

[AngeloV]

AV has alluded to this before but there are huge mismatches in CIS football, especially in the OUA, which makes it easier for some teams to run for 200 or 300 yards per game against other teams. Those mismatches simply don't exist at the professional level.

I also have friends that played in the CFL that admit they were behind a lot of the American rookies in camp as far as being pro ready goes. I don't say it because I'm a GOB "thinker".

[OV Argo]

AV has alluded to this before but there are huge mismatches in CIS football, especially in the OUA, which makes it easier for some teams to run for 200 or 300 yards per game against other teams. Those mismatches simply don't exist at the professional level.

SO - if I pointed to a CIS game, or particular team, where lots of good passing yardage was put up, or who
consistently had good passing stats, then you would also be able to say it's because they are facing weak competition or inferior defensive players?

But what about a CFL team that passes for 400 to 500 yards in a game ? - surely that would be impossible against the superior defenders and ultra complex (LOL) defences. And what about Sheets & the Riders GC win or Kackert and the Argos 2012 GC win, or the Bombers - when they actually tried a pounding run game against BC and produced 300 or so rushing yards and a huge win? - surely these type of games could not exist at the professional level ???

I don't get your thinking there.

[OV Argo]

I also have friends that played in the CFL that admit they were behind a lot of the American rookies in camp as far as being pro ready goes. I don't say it because I'm a GOB "thinker".

I read a comment by Tom Denison - former CIS star QB at Queens, who previously played US college ball (Div II & III though) who said the offence they had at Queens was way more complex than what he had seen in US college ball. Doesn't prove much to me other than about Denison's specific situations and his opinion.

You probably wouldn't want to hear the comments of a former CFL player (and Argo top draft pick) who used to comment (on an old CIS football forum) about what he saw in numerous CFL TCs he had attended - about the favortism shown towards American players and the harsher grading for Canadian players - especially at certain positions - which is also what ex-CFL QB Guilo Caravatta said about his brief CFL QB playing time.

Some teams run diverse offences with multiple formations, varied play-calling, a fairly balanced mix of pass & run. Other teams run a more simple, basic offence with a very predictable play-calling tendency (say 70+ % pass calls OR 70%+ ground game, game in, game out). This can happen in pro ball or college ball. I wouldn't expect many minor or high school football teams to have as big a play-book or as many formations or play-calls as teams at higher levels with better and more experienced athletes.

[R.J]

There are more Americans playing football than Canadians are. There's 119 Division 1 NCAA football programs compared to 27 CIS football programs and let's be honest Americans are better coached and play more games even from an earlier age than Canadians do. Are there great Canadian players - absolutely, but I think it's clear that there's more top end American talent.

[Rich]

I agree, OV. So why are you wasting your time (and our time) with mindless complaints?

What a bizarre comment from a mod. I guess Groupthink is alive and well on argofans.com. I for one am interested in any discussion about why the Argos running game is such crap. You call this a waste of time and yet you say nothing when other posters endlessly regale us with the most boring, mundane details about their personal lives. Obviously "time wasted" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Rich]

Money: true. But money doesn't prevent the best athletes from streaming themselves to receiver positions in high school and even Pop Warner. Forty years ago, every kid wanted to be O.J. Simpson. Now every kid wants to be Odell Beckham. Four-yard gains up the middle don't make Play of the Day.

You're behind the curve a bit on this Paul. There were a few years there when no RB was drafted in the NFL first round, but superstar backs seem to be making a comeback. A guy went 10th last year, another one is going for sure 1st round this year, and next year Leonard Fournette, the best college back since Adrian Peterson, will surely go top 5. These guys are big and fast, but the wrong body types for WR. Running Back will always be the glory position in high school ball, and there will always be outstanding backs, the difference now is that the pros don't ride a guy for 60 minutes like they used to.

[paulwoods13]

You're behind the curve a bit on this Paul. There were a few years there when no RB was drafted in the NFL first round, but superstar backs seem to be making a comeback. A guy went 10th last year, another one is going for sure 1st round this year, and next year Leonard Fournette, the best college back since Adrian Peterson, will surely go top 5. These guys are big and fast, but the wrong body types for WR. Running Back will always be the glory position in high school ball, and there will always be outstanding backs, the difference now is that the pros don't ride a guy for 60 minutes like they used to.

I disagree (obviously). One sure-fire RB in the first round does not indicate a resurgence of attention to that position, any more than one TE in Round 1 would indicate that everyone is going heavy on tight ends. Yes, teams will always need RBs, and some guys (including some superb talents) are just suited to that position. But I would venture a guess that there used to be more RBs drafted in Round 1 than any other position -- now we're down to one or two. And I don't know what the evidence is for RB still being the feature position in high school football. I would bet that most of the top high schools -- the ones that produce most of the top collegians and pros -- run more passing plays than running plays these days. (No evidence to back that up, admittedly.)

This story is from 2014 so out of date, but indicative of the trend:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/nfl-...0-yard-rushers

[ArgoGabe22]

And I don't know what the evidence is for RB still being the feature position in high school football. I would bet that most of the top high schools -- the ones that produce most of the top collegians and pros -- run more passing plays than running plays these days. (No evidence to back that up, admittedly.)

I have no idea what US high school football is like but something like Tier 2 football in Ontario will have 80-90% running plays on offence. The best athletes are made into running back simply because receivers are just used as blockers. I'm sure a top tier school (like a powerhouse) are able to recruit a decent QB, which then can have a more balanced offence.

That being said, I still think "receiver" is the most sought position in highschool. Everyone wants to be the next Odell Beckham Jr.

[OV Argo]

There are more Americans playing football than Canadians are. There's 119 Division 1 NCAA football programs compared to 27 CIS football programs and let's be honest Americans are better coached and play more games even from an earlier age than Canadians do. Are there great Canadian players - absolutely, but I think it's clear that there's more top end American talent.

WTF ???

What is your point here ? - to tell us that the US has a bigger population than Canada, and more football programs and produces more top notch, pro football players than Canada ? I think everybody gets that ?

[AngeloV]

I have no idea what US high school football is like but something like Tier 2 football in Ontario will have 80-90% running plays on offence. The best athletes are made into running back simply because receivers are just used as blockers. I'm sure a top tier school (like a powerhouse) are able to recruit a decent QB, which then can have a more balanced offence.

That being said, I still think "receiver" is the most sought position in highschool. Everyone wants to be the next Odell Beckham Jr.

It's not like that in Tier 1. There is way more passing and 5 receiver sets now than there used to be. Same with OVFL.

[AngeloV]

I read a comment by Tom Denison - former CIS star QB at Queens, who previously played US college ball (Div II & III though) who said the offence they had at Queens was way more complex than what he had seen in US college ball. Doesn't prove much to me other than about Denison's specific situations and his opinion.

Funny you should bring up Dennison. I know a guy that played on Queens and said Dennison was basically in love with himself, and that the team much preferred playing with Brannigan as the starter.

[R.J]

WTF ???

What is your point here ? - to tell us that the US has a bigger population than Canada, and more football programs and produces more top notch, pro football players than Canada ? I think everybody gets that ?

No offence OV, but the way you write and what you write it's as if you think the opposite - that there's more and better talented Canadian players to choose from.

[OV Argo]

No offence OV, but the way you write and what you write it's as if you think the opposite - that there's more and better talented Canadian players to choose from.

If i believed that I would come right out and say it.

I just wish I had a dollar for every time I heard some CFL fan site poster state the obvious like you did; almost every time the subject of the ratio comes up, or somebody sticks up for Canadian football talent, we get to hear: gee, there are more football players in the USA. Well guess what - they're not all available to the CFL as the NFL happens to employ about 2000 or so of those top notch players. And BTW as well - the fine US college ball system happens to produce lots of good Canadian talent who will play in the CFL - see Jim Corrigal, Jan Carinci, Kelvin Pruenster, Chris Schultz, Geoff Townsend, Kevin Smellie, Kevin Eiben, Cleon Laing, etc. The Canadian talent pool is IMO plenty big to stock a 9 team CFL, IMO.

[OV Argo]

Funny you should bring up Dennison. I know a guy that played on Queens and said Dennison was basically in love with himself, and that the team much preferred playing with Brannigan as the starter.

Maybe so - the same has been said about a lot of star athletes.

And Queens won the Vanier with Brannagan at the helm. Denison was a quite a bit better pure QB talent though, IMO.

[doubleblue]

Maybe so - the same has been said about a lot of star athletes.

And Queens won the Vanier with Brannagan at the helm. Denison was a quite a bit better pure QB talent though, IMO.

We don't know for sure, but if the CFL didn't have the present QB rules and just went with the X number of Canadians and Y number of Imports, Dennison and Brannagan might both be still in the League. Probably not as starters but just as good a backups as some of the Imports presently coming and going on CFL rosters.
I would guarantee it that CFL Coaches would start finding and developing Canadian QB's to be at least their 3rd stringer on the game day roster so they could add another designated import.

[AngeloV]

I would guarantee it that CFL Coaches would start finding and developing Canadian QB's to be at least their 3rd stringer on the game day roster so they could add another designated import.

I agree 100% with this. Then you never know what might happen, should an injury or 2 happen.

[OV Argo]

We don't know for sure, but if the CFL didn't have the present QB rules and just went with the X number of Canadians and Y number of Imports, Dennison and Brannagan might both be still in the League. Probably not as starters but just as good a backups as some of the Imports presently coming and going on CFL rosters.
I would guarantee it that CFL Coaches would start finding and developing Canadian QB's to be at least their 3rd stringer on the game day roster so they could add another designated import.

The standard argument to that point has been that the 3rd string Canadian QB would never play - unless the 1st and 2nd stringer got injured in the same game (as happened to lead to Bridge playing for the Als at the start of last season) - because with an injury to just one of the 1st or 2nd stringer the gobs would by next game just add another import QB who would automatically move ahead of the NI QB on the depth chart; while they would get the advantage of using the extra import spot in the total number of imports allowed (QBs now longer counted separately).

Do away the silly designated import rule garbage and counting QBs seperately, and add more NI spots to a roster - so that the game roster features AT LEAST as many NIs as imports (I would argue for a few more NIs than imports, like in CFL rosters of the past), and a typical gob MIGHT be inclined to look at a Canadian QB in the grand total on the roster so that he could use an import elsewhere.

["Issues"Mcgee]

You call this a waste of time and yet you say nothing when other posters endlessly regale us with the most boring, mundane details about their personal lives. Obviously "time wasted" is in the eye of the beholder.

You wouldn't happen to be that guy from the beaches with that sweet Argos toque who gave me a dirty look when I said, "Hey, buddy! Nice hat!" a couple weeks back, would you?

I like the personal chatter, it's a refreshing break from everyone trying to one up each other all the time.

[Rich]

You wouldn't happen to be that guy from the beaches with that sweet Argos toque who gave me a dirty look when I said, "Hey, buddy! Nice hat!" a couple weeks back, would you?

Hey if someone complimented my Argos hat I would probably kiss them. It's never happened before. If it was me I was probably a) too wired to notice or b) misinterpreting your remark as an insult. Sorry!