PDA

View Full Version : Rank the teams...the mid-february report card



Evil Dr. Len
02-22-2005, 10:16 AM
sometimes I get my ideas from thread ideas from 13thman and this is one of them...
I know it's early to do a team ranking but that's why I added the mid-february report card...I figure come late April early June, we could do another rankings report because free agency should be pretty much done and see how much our opinons have changed.

Here's my post from 13thman...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Montreal...solid D, best QB in league, best coach in the unfriendly Don and now a running game in Jenkins

2)Toronto...they've kept their grey cup team together and while I don't believe they were last years best team their confidence is soaring and they are obviously a "team" see New England Patriots for an example of what I mean by "team"

3)British Columbia...can't go wrong with their QB's, all around great offence and a defence that should continue to get better.

4)Edmonton...underrated QB, no more Pringle record watch should open up the stale playbook of last year, consisentency was last year's problem, let's see if it was Coach Higgins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rest is a toss-up, here's my view

5)Saskatchewan...even without Burris

6)Winnipeg...they really underachieved last year

T7)Calgary...with all their moves they'll either start on fire or finish on fire, either .500 is where they'll finish

T7)Hamilton...losing Cheatwood really hurts that defence and Danny Mac is no longer the QB to solve any of their shortfalls, either's Brazzell...if they land a better QB than Danny Mac(K. Jones) they easily pass Calgary and possibly Winnipeg

9) Ottawa...if Joseph stays healthy, if Ranek repeats last year's first half and if Poapoa can respond to the clear cut "if you lose, you're out" contract he signed this summer, this team could surprise and finish 9-9. If any of the if's fail, they on the road to a 5-13 year again.

Kamau Fan
02-22-2005, 10:50 AM
Edmonton has added a lot of age in the NI and I department...but outside of re-signing Swerve, only Wiltshire has anything resembling talent written on him. Fleiszer is ok...and even with is sack #'s last year, I think we can all agree that he is here because of his birth certificate. I agree Calgary will be around .500 but you cannot compare the moves the Esks made to that of Calgary. Getting Copeland was bigger than all the Edmonton moves combined...then factor in the Malbrough, Gauthier, re-signing Evans and Grace part. IMO, Bombers are wayyyy ahead of the Riders. Re-signing Matt was huge...but thats ALL they have done (inking Jocelyn Frenette and Scott Gordon doesn't count, 95% of fans don't know who they are). Winnipeg hasn't made any STELLAR moves, outside of the opinions of Bomber fans (myself included), but I wont boast here. McGarity, Breedlove (hottest prospect last year), Abou-Mechrek, soon to be Haji-Rasouli apparently and the re-signing of Sheridan, Fleming and Regimbald cannot be overlooked. In terms of what the Als have done, they are not #1...T.O. has lost nothing, they are perfect in the offseason:

1) TORONTO
2) CALGARY
3) MONTREAL
4) WINNIPEG

BC hasn't done anything this off-season save for re-signing Reid and Kidd...that can't be overlooked, but they haven't made themselves a presence. These are not pre-season rankings, but a report card. and thus, I'll go:
toronto
calgary
montreal (Winnipeg might soon be here)
winnipeg
edmonton (can't overlook the moves they made even if Beaton, Wiltshire and Swerve are getting up there)
hamilton (haven't really gained or lost. Can't help the Cheatwood situation, but they landed Brazzell)
saskatchewan
bc
ottawa

wildwest
02-22-2005, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure if you want us to rank teams based on where they would finish today, or based on what they have accomplished in the offseason, so I am going to go with the second one. Before I start, I am going to preface things by saying that I put alot of stock in continuity as long as the players in question are not over the hill or negative contributors.


Edmonton - Lost - Higgins, Marshall, Pringle, Mills, Panaro

lloyd
02-22-2005, 10:59 AM
Mid-offseason rankings?
I'll wait till the season starts to make my list.

56Parkies
02-22-2005, 11:04 AM
I agree Calgary will be around .500 but you cannot compare the moves the Esks made to that of Calgary

The difference is, Edmonton didn't NEED to make the big, splashy moves.. Calgary did.

Edmonton needed some depth, to tweak a few areas, and to shore up some weak areas that aren't as "flashy", mainly the lines. We've done well on the O-Line, and now we can turn attention to the DL.

Personally, the area I think that Calgary did better than us, was to have their coaching staff solidified prior to free agency, even if it did mean they had to have Higgins.. ;)

wildwest
02-22-2005, 11:20 AM
Sorry, I pushed the wrong button and my message posted right in the middle.

I'm not sure if you want us to rank teams based on where they would finish today, or based on what they have accomplished in the offseason, so I am going to go with the second one. Before I start, I am going to preface things by saying that I put alot of stock in continuity as long as the players in question are not over the hill or negative contributors.


Edmonton - Lost - Higgins, Marshall, Pringle, Mills, Panaro, Hendricks, Nash, Benoit
Maybe lost - October, Abdullah, (Ralph?), (Issa?)
Gained - Beaton, Wiltshire, Fleiszer, Maurer, Dubuc, Lancaster Jr.

At this point the Esks have done alot to address special teams (Maurer, Dubuc and Fleiszer should help alot), Canadian talent, and the offensive line, with question marks remaining at runningback and defensive line and defensive coordinator. Overall I would give them a rating of C+ for now.

I will have to do the other teams later.

56Parkies
02-22-2005, 11:22 AM
s'long as they don't end up promoting RC <shudder>, I'll be a lot happier.

Sad, when we used to have optimism on having such a great DC (either keeping Marshall, or picking up Stubler, Ritchie, Estay or someone else decent), and now we're just in the "ABC" realm -- Anybody But Campbell!!!

esks4life
02-22-2005, 11:33 AM
Mid-offseason rankings?
I'll wait till the season starts to make my list.
I agree. IMO it doesnt matter what team has done what. We will see what works when the season starts.

Opus
02-22-2005, 02:08 PM
I think the initial idea was to do a ranking not on how teams have done with the FA market, but where they'd finish if the season started today....

I'll reserve my guestimate until rosters have solidified even more.....

MEEZY
02-22-2005, 02:41 PM
Based the way the teams look now (not just on their offseason changes):

1. BC - still has two of the best QBs in the league signed
2. Toronto - still strong all-around, but Allen isn't getting younger
3. Montreal - loss of Copeland will hurt
4. Edmonton - some key off-season signings
5. Saskatchewan - not much change
6. Calgary - will be the most improved team, IMO
7. Winnipeg - not getting any younger
8. Hamilton - see above, coupled with the loss of Cheatwood
9. Ottawa - getting stripped apart

Kamau Fan
02-22-2005, 03:23 PM
7. Winnipeg - not getting any younger

Actually ...McGarity, Sutherland, Breedlove, Abou-Mechrek, soon to be Haji-Rasouli, possibly Kelly Malveaux, re-signing Sheridan, releasing:
-Gordon
-Fortney
-Making Elewonibi a backup (a al restructured contract)
-Looks like we're letting EC walk

we are much, MUCH younger.

Not disagreeing with being 7th at all...I think you are being kind...however, we are far from "not geeting any younger".

hgtff
02-22-2005, 03:52 PM
4. Edmonton - some key off-season signings
7. Winnipeg - not getting any younger



funny you would choose to describe it that way... The bombers are in fact getting younger, whereas the eskimos seem quite happy to keep the old folks around...

GeeBrr
02-22-2005, 06:32 PM
I have tried to tell Frito's fan plenty of times that this doesnt really fit anymore, ahhh well.

MEEZY
02-22-2005, 10:03 PM
I suppose that you guys are right... ;)

Some of your latest signings do add youth to the organization, but there's still a ways to go. I do admit that Edmonton is aging as well, but the reason I ranked them higher is based partly on last year's standings. As I said, I was not rating the teams based on their off-season acquisitions, I was rating them based on how they would fare today, given their current personnel.

Nanookster
02-23-2005, 08:25 AM
1. Edmonton - the fact that they wear Green and Gold places them here.
2. BC - still a good team.
3. Montreal - loss of Copeland will hurt
4. Toronto - only a so-so team but Stubes makes them better
5. Calgary - underated last year, made improvements this year.
6. Winnipeg - bunch of old geazers.
7. Hamilton - see above, even older.
8. Ottawa - getting robbed blind.
9. Saskatchewan - hey, they are the Rider's. They have a tradition to uphold!

GeeBrr
02-23-2005, 08:56 AM
You realize that your team is older than ours right Nanook?

Deathsdoorstep
02-23-2005, 09:24 AM
I would rank them this way:

BC
Montreal
Toronto
Saskatchewan
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Ottawa

esks4life
02-23-2005, 09:42 AM
You realize that your team is older than ours right Nanook?
Who cares about age. If these guys can play and maybe win you a championship then let them. When they retire we can choose to bring in more old guys. In this day athletes cant be judged by age anymore.

GeeBrr
02-23-2005, 09:46 AM
Hey I am just pointing out the facts, I agree as long as they win I dont give out points for style or age

esks4life
02-23-2005, 09:48 AM
Hey I am just pointing out the facts, I agree as long as they win I dont give out points for style or age
I didnt mean to sound like a big grouch in the last post. But IMO I like having a team with a lot of experience and leadership and if it means those guys are in there 30's then so be it. A team full of young to mid 20 somethings would not win you a cup.

GeeBrr
02-23-2005, 09:51 AM
I agree, the ideal situation is a blend of young and older.

56Parkies
02-23-2005, 10:27 AM
I wouldn't rank Montreal as high as so many of you have. They've lost Copeland, and last year's Eastern Final showed how weak they are if Calvillo goes down. Until they get a legitimate backup QB, I think they've gone down this year, not stayed status quo!

Nanookster
02-23-2005, 11:49 AM
Who cares about age. If these guys can play and maybe win you a championship then let them. When they retire we can choose to bring in more old guys. In this day athletes cant be judged by age anymore.

We were older last year by decimal points. We may be younger this year.

But like you said, who cares.