
Quote from: TBURGESS on Today at 02:25:44 AMStarted a few games isn't what I call a starter.
What I'm saying is the chances of any Canadian QB, especially one who didn't have US coaching, becoming a starter in the CFL is remarkably slim. If he makes it he will be a unicorn, like Rourke.
Quote from: TBURGESS on Today at 02:25:44 AMStarted a few games isn't what I call a starter.
What I'm saying is the chances of any Canadian QB, especially one who didn't have US coaching, becoming a starter in the CFL is remarkably slim. If he makes it he will be a unicorn, like Rourke.
Quote from: Blueforlife on Today at 01:23:42 PMI have a good feeling about this one!
Quote from: Jesse on Today at 12:01:53 AMI think we care about all of our draft picks who are good enough to get NFL looks. We're also in the market for a young quarterback with his physical attributes.I wouldn't be any more interested in him than all the other QBs who are not quite good enough for the NFL, and totally unproven as of yet in the CFL. Some feel his history of playing the game in Canada gives him a leg up on other prospects, and it may temporarily. But ultimately, a QB will sink or swim based on what's above his shoulders, his ability to read a defense and make good timely decisions with the ball. If you don't have that, as we have seen with Ford, a lifetime of playing Canadian ball will not help you.
Should we be intentionally uninterested because he's Canadian?
Quote from: Tecno on Today at 04:47:12 AMBecause since a couple/few years ago the QB can count as one of your 7 NAT starters? That definitely increased the interest on making a NAT QB "work". Before that it was absolutely no "bonus" for you to start a NAT QB.IMO QB is too important a position to worry much about Nat or non-Nat. You need to find the best player at the position, period. If it happens to be a Nat, that's a bonus, but its not worth enough to even consider starting an inferior QB.