Entertainment Value of Games

[ArgoRavi]

There was a lot of offensive yards in that game. Just bad red zone offence.

Agreed. It wasn't like the teams weren't moving the football.

Ultimately, the entertainment value of games comes down to quarterbacking and even the almighty NFL struggles to find quality QBs. In the CFL today, we have a top tier of Collaros, Adams, and Chad Kelly (and, yes, I am willing to put him in that top tier after four CFL starts), a middle tier of Harris and Fajardo, and a lower tier of the likes of Maier, Cornelius, Shiltz, and whomever Ottawa can trot out from week to week. This isn't as good as some eras of CFL football but it is similar to others, like the mid- to late 1980s or the late 1990s.

Further, I have said this before and will say it again: It is harder being a CFL QB today than it ever has been, as the defences one faces are far more complex than ever before.

[AngeloV]

Further, I have said this before and will say it again: It is harder being a CFL QB today than it ever has been, as the defences one faces are far more complex than ever before.

The hardest part of being a CFL QB today in my view is the unwillingness of teams to develop QB's. They get thrown in way too early and when the struggle, they are given up on. Ottawa IMO erred when they kept Arbuckle over Caleb Evans.

[Argo57]

Agreed. It wasn't like the teams weren't moving the football.

Ultimately, the entertainment value of games comes down to quarterbacking and even the almighty NFL struggles to find quality QBs. In the CFL today, we have a top tier of Collaros, Adams, and Chad Kelly (and, yes, I am willing to put him in that top tier after four CFL starts), a middle tier of Harris and Fajardo, and a lower tier of the likes of Maier, Cornelius, Shiltz, and whomever Ottawa can trot out from week to week. This isn't as good as some eras of CFL football but it is similar to others, like the mid- to late 1980s or the late 1990s.

Further, I have said this before and will say it again: It is harder being a CFL QB today than it ever has been, as the defences one faces are far more complex than ever before.

Defences are more “complex” and aggressive today and feature regular blitz packages, back in the day blitzes were an occasional tool used to pressure the QB.
To combat this offences of today feature more check downs much to the dismay of some but sure beats taking a sack.

[argolio]

Defences are more “complex” and aggressive today and feature regular blitz packages, back in the day blitzes were an occasional tool used to pressure the QB.
To combat this offences of today feature more check downs much to the dismay of some but sure beats taking a sack.

Compared to 50 years ago, emphasis has changed to speed & finesse from strength & power, rules are now much more pass-friendly, and the bigger roster allows for more substitutions. I read a story that said NFL teams stay in their starting/base defences less than 40% of the game. Down and distance determines personnel.

[jerrym]

Compared to 50 years ago, emphasis has changed to speed & finesse from strength & power, rules are now much more pass-friendly, and the bigger roster allows for more substitutions. I read a story that said NFL teams stay in their starting/base defences less than 40% of the game. Down and distance determines personnel.

Basically I agree with you, although don't tell that to Ouellette. He might run over you.