Best recieving core?

CFL Talk
1

I know its only week one but after the first round who do u think has the best reciving core in the CFL?

  1. BC - Geroy is gettin older but is still good..plus u have Jackson and Clermont still

  2. Calgary - If they could put their ego's in check they would get my vote but to many greedy hands and only one ball

  3. Riders - Flick and Fantuz are probably best one two punch at SB but Dominguez is good but is injury prone...and Bowman is a rookie

  4. Bombers - Armstrong is probably the best WR in the league and Stegall is a freak of nature.....

As much as i love my riders still gotta give the edge to bombers....god that ever hurts to type

2

I think Calgary and Winnipeg have the best receiving corps. Saskatchewan isn't bad.

Picking between Calgary and Winnipeg is difficult. But judging based on just this week, I'd give the edge to Calgary. Your receiving corps is only as good as your QB, and Calgary wins that. If Burris can skip the Jekyll and Hyde routine this year... Ouch.

3

I do not give the same appreciation to the Winnipeg receivers.

BC does have serious threats.

Calgary is dangerous and scary. I do not know if it is Burris, or the WRs, or the O-line, or the head coach, or a combo of everything but they are scary.

I gotta give love for the WRs of the Riders too. This team looks as impressive as the rest of the best.
Bias? Probably.
Actual and factual? Undeniably true.

4

Bombers/Lions/Stampeders

5

When Dominguez gets back (probably for next game) we will have a sick recieving core. Who do you key on with Dominguez, Fantuz, Flick, and Bowman? One of them is bound to get open and when they do they will make you pay. Yeah I am biased because I am a rider fan but I also genuinely think that they are at the top of the league when these guys are all out there together.

6

It's really tough to decide, I think BC has a heck of a receiving core but they didn't put up great numbers last year.

I think Winnipeg is #1 right now with Stegall, Armstrong, Edwards, and Franklin.

I'd rank em as

  1. Winnipeg
  2. Calgary
  3. BC
  4. Saskatchewan

Any of those teams could interchange, I think Winnipeg and Calgary have the best 2 QB's which definately helps, but ya never know.

Bowman could be a huge surprise to anyone not a Rider fan this year, since he was a projected 1st round NFL pick, and had a great game against the Esks.

7

receiving CORPS.

8

…you’re operating on things that were 2-3 years ago, all that crap is long done with, and makes for a better corp of receivers than they were then…

9

Why not? Edwards, Stegall, Armstrong, Franklin.

You gotta back up a statement like that.

10

winnipeg has the edge over calgarys in my mind.

altho the stamps have copeland, lewis and thelwell, calgary had rambo fumble 2ice and that new guy jackson dropped 3 catchable passes...and they dont seem to use copeland or thelwell anymore.

whereas, winnipeg has edwards, stegall, armstrong, stoddard and franklin...nuff said.

id rank them:

winnipeg - stegall, armstrong, edwards
bc - simon, clarmont, jackson
sask - dominguez, flick, fantuz
calgary - lewis, rambo, copeland
montreal - cahoon, watkins, thurmon
toronto - bruce, talbot, johnson
edmonton - tucker, peterson
hamilton - miles

11

i really dont think it matters if u call them core or corps…i’ve heard both announcers and players call them ‘receiving core’ many many times.

12

^ Because the ps is silent.

13

seriously?
i guess that would explain all the confussion.

14

.....it is recEIving....I think a few people are selling the stamps receivers a little short...good balance with Lewis , Copeland and Rambo....Bombers have excellent pass-catchers...they just have to have someone who can get the ball to them..
Lions are right up there... :thup:

15

…and yet leads the receivers in the first week with 8 catches for 136 yards…he made up for the fumbles IMO…

16

I think the confusion comes from saying that “We’ve kept the core of this team together from last year,” versus, “They have a really strong defensive corps lining up against us.”

You could probably use “core” in the 2nd instance and get away with it if in fact you meant that the core of their defensive corps was really strong.

But not nearly as confusing as:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

17

While pronounced the same, "core" and "corps" have different meanings.

You can legitimately refer to the heart of your team as being the "core" of your team; but a group of receivers, a group of linebackers, are a corps.

If we're going to use the English language we should at least make an effort to use it properly.

Enough ranting, I'll go to my corner now...

Spain 1 Germany 0 end of half.

18

I'm just glad that no one has referred to any team's receiving corpse yet!! :rockin: :oops: :rockin:

19

(1)Calgary
(2) BC
(3) Saskatchewan
(4) Toronto
(5) Montreal
(6) Winnipeg
(7)Edmonton
(8( Hamilton

20

It's too early to tell really. As someone else said, the receivers are only as good as the QB makes them look. A good QB can make good recs into great ones (like Burris in Calgary).

Based on last year's numbers I belive it was BC but last year is dead and gone so ...