Blue Bombers Forum
October 27, 2020, 06:00:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 45
  Print  
Author Topic: Nichols or Collaros  (Read 44574 times)
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24881


« Reply #345 on: November 27, 2019, 03:49:47 PM »

Collaros was pretty much a carbon copy of Matt Nichols. Collaros with a better ability to scramble and Nichols a little better at reading the D and getting the ball out of his hands. Both played within the confines of the Lapo system pretty much equally as well and both have demonstrated an ability to win games within that system by taking care of the rock.

It is complete nonsense to suggest that Collaros was far better than Nichols at QB. It's revisionist history perpetrated by those who have an axe to grind with Nichols.

+ 1 and that's no knock on Collaros. He played close to error free.

The bigger picture was the dominant run game and how the defense rose to the task in the play offs.

We beat up the opponents physically and mentally on both sides of the ball.

The Grey Cup was a DECISIVE victory.
Logged

No more excuses.
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24823


« Reply #346 on: November 27, 2019, 03:51:35 PM »

+ 1 and that's no knock on Collaros. He played close to error free.

The bigger picture was the dominant run game and how the defense rose to the task in the play offs.

We beat up the opponents physically and mentally on both sides of the ball.

The Grey Cup was a DECISIVE victory.

For sure. Collaros did take more shots downfield but if people remember correctly Lapo had vastly increased our downfield passes with Nichols this year prior to his injury as well. People tend to forget that earlier this season we were the best 1st half team in the league and were nursing comfortable leads in almost every game in the 2nd half. That changed our offensive philosophy completely and we had no need to take chances down the field. Toronto and Montreal games were outliers.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 03:53:48 PM by GCn19 » Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29365



« Reply #347 on: November 27, 2019, 04:04:47 PM »

The # of jobs on CFL Active Rosters for qb's just went from 27 to 18... there are going to be QB's that will not get jobs this year.  The question, wit all the success of young QB's this year, will GM's move from higher priced veterans and take risks on younger, cheaper guys they can tie up longer? 

Who get fought over. Evans or Masoli?  Arbuckle or Collaros?  Nichols or Streveler? 

Will we see guys like Nichols and Collaros take a page from Tate's book, extend their careers by holding clipboards behind young guns?  Riley, Mitchell, Harris, Fajardo and Adams are not moving, so that leaves 4 openings for:  Nichols, Collaros, Masoli, Evans, Arbuckle... who will be odd man out? 

Depth QBs, for the backup role, we have Bridge, Bennett, Bethel-Thompson, Jennings, Harker, Franklin, Davis, Watford, Streveler, Shiltz, Prukop, Pipkin, OBrein, McGuire and Kilgore... plus any new recruits, vying for 9 jobs (plus the one starter than falls through)

Does this make it a buyers market?  Does a defending GC champ gain an advantage, especially if it maintains its coaching corps?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24823


« Reply #348 on: November 27, 2019, 04:08:22 PM »

The # of jobs on CFL Active Rosters for qb's just went from 27 to 18... there are going to be QB's that will not get jobs this year.  The question, wit all the success of young QB's this year, will GM's move from higher priced veterans and take risks on younger, cheaper guys they can tie up longer? 

Who get fought over. Evans or Masoli?  Arbuckle or Collaros?  Nichols or Streveler? 

Will we see guys like Nichols and Collaros take a page from Tate's book, extend their careers by holding clipboards behind young guns?  Riley, Mitchell, Harris, Fajardo and Adams are not moving, so that leaves 4 openings for:  Nichols, Collaros, Masoli, Evans, Arbuckle... who will be odd man out? 

Depth QBs, for the backup role, we have Bridge, Bennett, Bethel-Thompson, Jennings, Harker, Franklin, Davis, Watford, Streveler, Shiltz, Prukop, Pipkin, OBrein, McGuire and Kilgore... plus any new recruits, vying for 9 jobs (plus the one starter than falls through)

Does this make it a buyers market?  Does a defending GC champ gain an advantage, especially if it maintains its coaching corps?

QB on the 44 changed but every team will be carrying 3 QBs and one will be a scratch and instead of watching from the sidelines they will be watching from the booth. Nothing will change in regards to QB jobs except for game day rosters. There will be the same number of QBs under contract and earning game day cheques.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 04:10:05 PM by GCn19 » Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24881


« Reply #349 on: November 27, 2019, 04:40:14 PM »

QB on the 44 changed but every team will be carrying 3 QBs and one will be a scratch and instead of watching from the sidelines they will be watching from the booth. Nothing will change in regards to QB jobs except for game day rosters. There will be the same number of QBs under contract and earning game day cheques.

I'm still hopeful that the league reverses that decision. In theory a 3rd QB won't be a scratch on game day since technically there is no provision on the AR to have 3. He'd have to be placed on the 1 game IR after TC breaks and / or a rookie on the PR.
Logged

No more excuses.
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1481


« Reply #350 on: November 27, 2019, 04:43:09 PM »

I'm still hopeful that the league reverses that decision. In theory a 3rd QB won't be a scratch on game day since technically there is no provision on the AR to have 3. He'd have to be placed on the 1 game IR after TC breaks and / or a rookie on the PR.

Agreed.  Considering every single starting QB in the league missed significant time this year due to injury (OK, maybe not OTT or TO, but to be fair, they didn't really have QBs to begin with), it seems somewhat counterintuitive to reduce it to two per team, and truthfully serves no benefit.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29365



« Reply #351 on: November 27, 2019, 04:52:30 PM »

QB on the 44 changed but every team will be carrying 3 QBs and one will be a scratch and instead of watching from the sidelines they will be watching from the booth. Nothing will change in regards to QB jobs except for game day rosters. There will be the same number of QBs under contract and earning game day cheques.

If they are on the roster, they won't be on it as a QB.  So they take an Int spot.  Or a Nat spot if you take Bridge or O'Connor... which begs the question, why have a QB designation at all.  Its not like there are SMS considerations, you can pay a QB as much or as little as any player.  The only reason for listing one as QB is to get 3 more Int players on the field... but it limits you as to how and when you can deploy them.  Which makes no sense, limiting your highest paid players.  

Why not declare 2 receivers as QB's and your QB's as receivers, meaning you can have 3 QBs on the field at any time, but not both those receivers.  Make Streveler a REC, doesn't affect his pay, you can pay him whatever you want, and hen he can be on the field whenever.  

Taking our present QBs as examples, Nichols and McGuire are your QB's, Streveler a WR.  In that scenario you can have Nichols and Streveler both on the field, and then direct snap to Harris...  or Adams...

I'm thinking the QB designation should be dumped and just converted to Int positions, unless they make a QB SMS exemption of some sort, maybe adding an ability to offer a non-SMS re-signing bonus, 10% for current players, 15% for players with 5 yrs service with that club.  

Better yet, adopt the NFL franchise player designation idea...

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29365



« Reply #352 on: November 27, 2019, 04:54:21 PM »

I'm still hopeful that the league reverses that decision. In theory a 3rd QB won't be a scratch on game day since technically there is no provision on the AR to have 3. He'd have to be placed on the 1 game IR after TC breaks and / or a rookie on the PR.
[/b]

Those rookies wouldn't be on the list I provided... I don't think anyone I named would fit on a PR, regardless... 

Might be moot, with the XFL2 coming... still don't know what kind of talent drain that will be on players... we've already seen it was significant from Front Office drain...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2645


« Reply #353 on: November 27, 2019, 04:59:29 PM »

For sure. Collaros did take more shots downfield but if people remember correctly Lapo had vastly increased our downfield passes with Nichols this year prior to his injury as well. People tend to forget that earlier this season we were the best 1st half team in the league and were nursing comfortable leads in almost every game in the 2nd half. That changed our offensive philosophy completely and we had no need to take chances down the field. Toronto and Montreal games were outliers.

This is true, but Nichols flat out missed more of those downfield passes than Collaros did. His long ball accuracy is a weakness. I totally agree with you that they are comparable QBs, but Collaros is definitely better at two things 1) scrambling to make plays happen out of nothing, and 2) stretching the field with accurate deep balls.
Logged
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24823


« Reply #354 on: November 27, 2019, 05:03:14 PM »

This is true, but Nichols flat out missed more of those downfield passes than Collaros did. His long ball accuracy is a weakness. I totally agree with you that they are comparable QBs, but Collaros is definitely better at two things 1) scrambling to make plays happen out of nothing, and 2) stretching the field with accurate deep balls.

Sure...and Nichols is better at reading a D and executing in the red zone.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2645


« Reply #355 on: November 27, 2019, 05:24:02 PM »

He is if the hurt of a 3 or 4 win season is fresh your mind. We would have traded nearly anything from a proven commodity like Nichols is now when he had Goltz, Hall or any of those other QBs in the black hole years. And rightfully so. If Collaros was worth a third and a potential first rounder not having played the entire year, Nichols is worth at least as much if not more. Now he's not under contract, which works against us, but so long as he'd commit to signing with the team that trades for him he's worth the cost of a high pick.

+1
Logged
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2645


« Reply #356 on: November 27, 2019, 05:52:24 PM »

Agree to disagree. In my eyes Nichols is an average starting QB. Average. Not elite.

You're free to hold this opinion, but it's objectively wrong, and what's more, depending on how you define "starting QB" it's not even close.

If you only count the 9 QBs who began the season as the designated starting QB, Nichols and Collaros hold the top two QB efficiency ratings. Being second out of nine is not average.

But this was a season of many starting QBs. There were 17 QBs who started 6 or more games this season. That's a third of the season. In this era, where QBs regularly get knocked out for the season, you could make the argument that there were at least 18 starting QBs. 17 QBs who started 6 or more games, and Collaros, who started the season but didn't play that many games.

Being second out of 18 isn't even close to average.

You can make the argument that QB efficiency rating isn't everything, and that's true, but it's by far the most qualitative measurement we have for how well a QB has performed, because it accounts for interceptions, and that's a big deal. Turnovers are a big factor in whether a team wins or loses, and no other stat accounts for it properly.

We could consider win/loss record, and that would be a far less accurate measurement of how well the QB performed, considering that it's a team game, but I'm pretty sure Nichols would still be in the top three or four (at least) of all of those QBs. He was 7-2.

As Bo Levi Mitchell said (and I'll keep repeating this quote as often as necessary), it would be insane to say that Nichols is not an elite QB in this league.
Logged
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2645


« Reply #357 on: November 27, 2019, 06:10:11 PM »

You have to look at the competition. Collaros did it against Cgy, Cgy, Skn and Ham. Nichols did it against the bottom teams and Edmonton.

You can always come up with some qualifier for why the #1 QB in the league isn't elite, but that doesn't make it less stupid. See my other comments just above, but for the record, Bo Levi's comment was made last year, so any lack of competition in Nichols' schedule this year is entirely irrelevant to his opinion on it.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24881


« Reply #358 on: November 27, 2019, 06:11:12 PM »

If they are on the roster, they won't be on it as a QB.  So they take an Int spot.  Or a Nat spot if you take Bridge or O'Connor... which begs the question, why have a QB designation at all.  Its not like there are SMS considerations, you can pay a QB as much or as little as any player.  The only reason for listing one as QB is to get 3 more Int players on the field... but it limits you as to how and when you can deploy them.  Which makes no sense, limiting your highest paid players.  

Why not declare 2 receivers as QB's and your QB's as receivers, meaning you can have 3 QBs on the field at any time, but not both those receivers.  Make Streveler a REC, doesn't affect his pay, you can pay him whatever you want, and hen he can be on the field whenever.  

Taking our present QBs as examples, Nichols and McGuire are your QB's, Streveler a WR.  In that scenario you can have Nichols and Streveler both on the field, and then direct snap to Harris...  or Adams...

I'm thinking the QB designation should be dumped and just converted to Int positions, unless they make a QB SMS exemption of some sort, maybe adding an ability to offer a non-SMS re-signing bonus, 10% for current players, 15% for players with 5 yrs service with that club.  

Better yet, adopt the NFL franchise player designation idea...



Dumbest thing I've heard today as long as there is a QB designation. At the moment you could list Streveler as a receiver but it would be at the expense of another import.

There is a QB designation so that teams don't list a ringer as a QB and let him play elsewhere as a regular.
Logged

No more excuses.
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2645


« Reply #359 on: November 27, 2019, 06:14:36 PM »

Sure...and Nichols is better at reading a D and executing in the red zone.

I haven't observed this personally but I could definitely see it being the case. Any stats or supporting argument to back this up?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 45
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!