2013 vs 2014 after 5 Games

Tiger-Cats after 5 games

2013: 1-4 (-59 points)
2014: 1-4 (-19 points)

Where did we end up last year?

I'm looking at the schedule and given the condition of the east division 9-9 or 10-8 is not out of the question.

We have 3 losses by a total of 8 points to the best 3 teams in the league currently.
If anyone in this country knew how to make power rankings we would be a lot higher than the 9th place we'll likely be in this week.
Stay the course. Its still incredibly early.

I'm a lot less worried this year than last, and not because of the weakness of the division but from what I see out of the team.

Last year at this time we had gotten blown out by a terrible Edmonton team and completely shut out by Saskatchewan. Our only win so far was against a terrible Winnipeg team. Our defence was still as terrible as it was the year before. We'd go on to a 3 game win streak after this, but only because were were playing Winnipeg and Edmonton.

This year, on the other hand, I see a good defence. I see a team that could just as easily be 4-1. Our starting QB is injured, we started 3 games on the road, we've lost close games to the best teams in the league. A loss is a loss and I'm not making excuses, but I see a good team out on the field despite the record. I didn't see that last year.

My only worry is that by the time we get Zach back in there, it'll be well past Labour Day. I would have liked to see him building experience over the course of the season. LeFevour's been good, and much better than I expected, but I'm not convinced he's a bonafide starter yet. I don't see us finishing any lower than 2nd in this division, but Zach being out the first half could leave him less prepared come playoff time.

I'm the opposite. Last year, we had one of the league's top QBs. When (if) all league QBs are healthy, this year, I don't think we'd have one of the top 7. The weakness of the division is the best thing in our favour to have hope of matching the success of 2013. I do, however, still believe that the second best thing in our favour, for success this year, is Kent Austin.

There are Big Differences this year

QB is the biggest No Hank we have so so guys at CB
OL No Marwan no Peter
MLB is new

1-4 There lucky to be that I thought they’d be 0-5 by now

It don’t Surprise me any more when The TiCats lose I am surprises with they win

Are you referring to the 56.2% completion average, 6.77 yards per attempt, 77.6 QB rating Henry Burris?

If you're saying quarterback is the problem, then watching Burris this season you gotta realize he's not the solution.

this year they've been unlucky, the 1st game vs Sask was a loss and a deserved one, the last 3 could all be wins, with luck they'd be 4-1, they probably should be 3-2 or 2-3.

Wow, hank is the ONLY reason the RBs are any good. Brand new team, entirely new offence, all players with ONE camp together, No defence to help them out. With all of that against him of course his stats are going to drop off from last year when, just in case you forgot, he took the Cats to the Grey Cup. And, threw for 5000 yards both seasons with the Cats, with career numbers last season. I guess you hate Hank, but please do not try to turn your hate into some fantasy about him forgetting how to play football in the off-season or that he isn't the best player on his current team. Can you imagine how bad the RBs would be with no Hank and any of the current Cats' QBs in his stead? Again, wow!

Did the RB's not look better when they pulled Hank? DeMarco seemed to move the team quite a bit better did he not?

And this "He took them to the Grey Cup last year" stuff is pure nonsense. Pretty sure Masoli & the offensive game plan won them home field advantage for the EDSF against Montreal in the 2nd last regular season game of the year. Also thought LeFevour played a crucial role in the playoff game against Montreal to win there. Also, thought the Defense played lights out & shut out Ricky Ray & the Argos in the EDF.

I will give that Burris played well in the 2nd half of the EDF, but to say he Led Them To The Grey Cup is ridiculous. Especially when you give him the benefit of the doubt about the team around him in Ottawa. Is it the team or Henry? Choose one please. You can't say that Henry led a team out of one side of your mouth & then say he doesn't have the team around him out the other side.

Anyways, you can think of Hank walking on water and I can see him for what he is. It appears that Coaches/GM's like Hufnagel & Austin seem to see things similarly as I do. I'll take their opinions until I see you on the sidelines or in the front office.

Oooh Testy are we? You don’t like it when everyone doesn’t agree with the all knowing Fenderguy?

Yep other QBs played last year. Hank still threw for 5000 yards and played the majority of the snaps all year so he carried the load for the offence. Those other QBs are still with the Cats. How they doing so far there bippy? And don’t read things into what I say. Never did I say that Hank carried the Cats. QB leads the team in a QB driven league. He’s still leading the RBs with no supporting cast. Simple. Pure. Truth.

Analize with your Hank Hatin’ blinders on. It doesn’t make your arguments any stronger. And it appears that a GM for the new team saw Hank as worth a lot of $$$$$. It’s not like he was unemployed for long. Austin (and Bob no doubt, and maybe even Huf a little bit) are probably thinking “we should have paid Hank.”

I doubt either or any of them are losing any sleep over it.

Go back to trying to figure out zone or man-to-man coverage BD87. You obviously need a tutorial & remedial education.

I never said you said Hank “carried” the Cats. You said Henry “took” them to the Grey Cup. That’s how I quoted you. But if you want to split hairs, I’m guessing it’s more accurate to say that the Air Canada pilot & team bus driver that “took” the team to the Grey Cup. I thought you implied by saying “took” that you meant led. And obviously I was right since you now say a “QB leads the team in a QB driven league”.

Well, how is Burris leading them? He got pulled. His QB rating is worse than the backup to the guy that was brought in to replace him. He has the same record as TiCats overall yet got beat handedly by the backup to the guy who was supposed to replace him.

So is it a QB driven league or the team around you? Just pick a side of the fence BettyDee!?!?

  1. Couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not. At least I know when it's zone defense or man-to-man. (btw, you didn't in case you forgot) You want to come at me and pick me apart no matter what I say. Bring it BettyDWhoLivesInA8x7 ... You wanna go head to head in advanced stats etc? Anytime BettyBoop ... I'll put my credentials up against yours anytime!

  2. If you'd like to align yourself with the personnel decisions of Marcel Desjardins, good for you. I'll stick with Hufnagel & Austin. Signing Hank was as much marketing as it was football in Ottawa. And I for one applaud them for it. They needed a face of the franchise and there's none better that Henry Burris.

  3. And I want to make this clear. I do not hate Henry. I've met him numerous times. I've bumped into him shopping at Longo's. I've had beers with him at The Dickens. I've attended & donated generously to charity events that he has hosted. He is/was an excellent choice for the REDBLACKS to overpay as their QB in the 1st year. He can sell tickets. He can put butts in the seats. He's great with the corporate marketing. He is an ideal face of the franchise for an expansion team.

All that being said, I don't want Henry as my QB. Too many turnovers. Too much "take it in my own hand to win the game". Then promptly fumble or throw an interception or a untimely 2 & out.

And when I say this stuff, I know there are lots and lots and lots of people that feel the same way.

Why do you think they have the saying; Good Henry. Bad Hank. .???

I didn't make it up? You seem to think that I'm the first person to even dare to label Burris as an unreliable, erratic quarterback?

That's exactly what we said last year. A 37 - 0 loss to Sask in Week 4 and everyone was talking about benching Burris.
Ottawa is saying the exact same thing this year - they are coming off a big loss to Sask and could've, should've, would've beat Hamilton, Winnipeg -- but "could've, should've, would've don't count only wins count.
good QBs have bad games - look at Ray this year.

I think Henry Burris is a good QB. A very good one in fact. But I think it was the right decision for the Ticats to move to a new one this year. HB might well have been better this year than our current ones are. MIght have been. Or might not. But he is near the ail end of his career and I think it's better to make that kind of change too early than too late. If this year is a step back in order to take two steps forward next year and for years after, I'm all for it.

I agree that HB is an excellent choice for Ottawa as their year one QB... he's a fine face of the franchise, an established quality player, and the best choice for them. If they got what they wanted, and HB got the salary he wanted, then that's terrific. For us, the situation was different, and so the choice was different. I think we made the right one too.

When we first got HB I thought it was a mistake. I figured we couldn't build our future on another team's past. I always thought he was streaky, good, maybe very good, but not great, and past his prime. Not HOF material. I retrospect I think I was wrong, it was not a mistake. He made very good contributions in his time in Hamilton and I'm happy we had him. But it's time to move on to the next generation. That comes with ups and downs. It always does.

I don't expect us to do better this year than we did last. That is to say, I think we'll make the playoffs. If we make it to the GC anything can happen, but I don't expect it.

As for HB, when he retires he'll have a career he can be proud of. I still don't think he should go to the HOF, but then I'm picky about these things and think it should be much more exclusive. He'll probably get in.

Ha Ha Ha. can't win an argument so you resort to personal attacks and slip into obsessive behaviour by multiple replies and searching out my other posts to attack me there. Typical.

As to the main point of this back and forth, if you are sooooo great at statistics, why do you continually break the most important rule of using statistics in that you can not compare statistical values where multiple variables that could/must alter the results have changed? Comparing Hanks stats of this year to previous years to prove he is a bad player this year is a rookie mistake and a blatant one at that. Yet you continue to use statistics in that manner.

Also, you should know that a two phrase colloquialism/cliche does not ever encapsulate the true talent or skill of a player, in any game or any sport. To do so not only demeans the league and the player, it vastly cheapens your argument. It basically proves your bias and just because "everyone else says it" doesn't mean it is true or valid. I just means you seem to not be able to think for yourself in using a phrase of convenience. Why make valid points when you can just fall back on a cliche and leave it at that.

As to the last play of the last game, which somehow is now a part of this thread, I will rewatch it but I stand by my position that the secondary was in zone coverage. But how could I be 100% sure? I can't and I say as much in the post you are attacking me for. I can't know it because I am not privy to the play calling on the field during a game. I do know what zone and man coverage look like. Sometimes, just by watching the movement of the players right after the snap of the ball I can be confident of what the players intend to do. But, I am not so naive to think that I know it all, and I trust that the CFL coaching ranks are far more advanced in their schemes than I can ever be without being immersed in the day to day of a CFL franchise. Therefore, it is absolutely a possibility that the Cats were in any number of types of coverage, even a hybrid coverage based on the nature of the offencive play. A "Zone Blitz" if you like to use NFL terms. I also feel confident in saying that, no coach in the pro ranks puts a G-N type player in one-on-one coverage on a back like Grigsby on the most important play of the game, and expects him to cover all the way to the sideline.

You however, talk like you know the call, the coverage and the responsibility of every player on the field when you state without doubt that "It was not zone coverage people."

I don't remember saying that, but this year it's not a case of "could've, should've etc, it's pointing out that their record isn't as bad as it sounds, that can't be rationally disputed, there point differential is like most teams with a record of 1 game under .500, not 3. They do need to improve on luck and reduce injuries and penalties.

Nor are any of Guys on The Current Roster Playing QB

Not one has Proven anything yet

We are actually stopping the deep pass this year, something we have not been able to do the last 3-5 so I am happy about that. We have also been in the bottom for sacks the same period, and still are, not sure what to do there, trade maybe, but who for what?

Further ... 2013 vs. 2014

Net Offence Team = 1669 vs. 1409 or down 15.6%
Net Offence Opponent = 1937 vs. 1654 or reduced 14.6%

Penalties Team = 51 vs. 74 or 45% higher
Penalty Yards = 416 vs. 557 or 33.9% higher

Sacks Allowed = 25 vs. 21 or reduced 16%
Sacks Made = 10 vs. 7 or down 30%

Turnover Ratio = -10 vs. -3 or improved 70%

Yards Per Pass Attempt Team = 8.6 vs. 7 or down 18.6%
Yards Per Pass Attempt Opponent = 9.33 vs. 6.84 or reduced 26.7%

Yards Per Rush Team = 5.1 vs. 5.73 or improved by 12.35%
Yards Per Rush Opponent = 7 vs. 4.95 or reduced by 29.3%