This guy make's a few good points but the bc lions are the of the decade!!http://bit.ly/4sgNqZ
I didn't see any good points... kind of a sorry excuse for a blog post. :lol:
I know with Montreal's seven trips to the Grey Cup, it's hard to deny that they've been the best of the decade... but I just don't like thinking of them as the best. Let's be honest, there isn't as much competition in the East as there is in the West. The Tiger-Cats sucked for the longest time, Ottawa was terrible for a lot of years, and the Bombers were hot and cold.
The als have had the best gm Jim Popp and are definetly in line to be the power house from 2010 to 2019.
The ti-cats played good enough to beat the lions in the playoffs look out for them and maybe the renegades/rough riders.
...I agree that the Lions are the the of the decade...if you had said the team of the decade well then you'd have an argument on your hands...
There is no clear cut winner. Als are out, 2 - 5 doesn't cut it. Almost 1 - 6 , but some type of accounting error occured !
The Stamps are 2 0 in GreyCups in the decade and should get some votes. It's all about finishing. The Eskimos are in the mix. The Lions as well . They would have been the clear cut winners of team of the decade, if not for losing to the Argos 2004.
The worst team of the decade is a easy one, Hamilton ! It's not even close.
I'd have no problem picking the Lions as the team of the decade, they played in a tough as always West division, and had a string of quality QB's.
As much as I dislike the Lions, I think you could definitely make a case for them.
They finished first in the highly competitive West Division from 2004-2007, and they've been in the hunt for first most other years. They haven't missed the playoffs once. They've been to the Grey Cup three times, and they've won twice.
Just like the Stamps, the Tiger-Cats have a perfect record in the Grey Cup for the decade, so they should also get some votes. It's all about finishing, as you say. Unless it isn't. I don't think you could judge team of the decade by Grey Cup/ playoff record alone. You have to take regular season performance into account, as you do with Hamilton (after all, there's no post-season for the worst teams).
Hamilton didn't make it to the Grey Cup this decade. The last time they were in the Grey Cup was in 99.
Oops. I was thinking about 2001, last time they had a home play-off berth. Don't I feel stupid.
Well, Hamilton still didn't lose any playoff games this decade.... * sheepish grin * I'll stop talking now.
I think the worst team of the decade is Ottawa... they haven't won a game in years.
Montreal. Even in this 8-team League, it is difficult to reach the Grey Cup final. Montreal has made that trek almost routine, dominating their division year in and year out. They may have only 2 cups to show for it, but years down the line, they will be
remembered as a dominant team.
Sort of like the Atlanta Braves of the 90's, the Yankees and Red Sox of the 00's, to name a few.
For the record, I'm a Calgary fan, and the west division has seen equal domination from all 4 teams, whereas MTL was the class of the east.
Cut out the subjectivity..
The team most expected to win on any given day this decade was the Als and the numbers support that.
Anything else is only an admiration for a particular aesthetic of performance.
The most competitive wins overall + 2 Grey Cups vs any other team with less overall wins and no more than 2 Grey Cups... by every measure the Als have been the best.
I have to agree with you i wouldn't look at 7 grey cup appearences with only 2 wins as the best of the decade, i would look at it as a team who plays great in the reg season and can't finish come crunch time, (I know im a rider fan, shouldn't be talking about finishing a game lol) but i think BC should get it over Montreal.
Who's been their competition? put them in the west and see how succsessful they are, you put any of the teams from the west in the east they would be in the grey cup like 10 times.
...my vote goes to the Als...they tie BC/Calgary/Edmonton in number of GC wins in the last decade but based on their consistent regular season dominance leading to multiple trips to the Big Game they outpace those three other teams...
...I don't buy into this 'east is weak' theory, Hamilton/Toronto/Winnipeg have not always been as dysfunctional as they have been over the last two years, the Argos were strong when Damon was at the helm and the Ticats were a decent enough team at the beginning of the decade, and the Bombers had their moments too, but Montreal consistently finished high with multiple coaches leading the way, which says a lot about the fabric of the organization...the west had bed-crappers too (riders under Barrett/Shivers, Calgary under the oppressive gong-show cardboard king, Edmonton missing the playoffs after 34 years) yet there was never a consistent league dominator in the west like Montreal was in their division...BC gets a close second though IMO...
CGY still has 2 this decade, which would be more than 1 ! So which part of SASK. you you born in !
So we have a perfect record in the Grey Cup this decade then
If you look at the regular season records for each team, B.C. isn't that far behind Montreal. Montreal is 115-65, while B.C. is 108-71-1. That's pretty damn close. And if you look at 2008, both teams finished with 11-7 records, yet Montreal won the East, and B.C. took third in the West. B.C. finished 11-7 in 2003, as well, and finished fourth (that was when Winnipeg was also in the West). The West has always been the more competitive division.
Hamilton had two decent seasons at the start of the decade, and that's it, and Toronto didn't post its first winning record until 2004, and Ottawa was just terrible.
Not to mention there was a Western crossover in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2009.
What happens when you just look at regular season records between divisions, rather than within divisions? How do Montreal and the western teams fare against each other? I think it's fair to point out that the other East Division teams were weak, but it isn't necessarily the only reason for Montreal's success. For example, if you only look at games between teams in different divisions for this season and ignore games between teams in the same division, you see that Montreal has more wins against western teams than any western team has against eastern teams (Montreal has 6 wins against the west, Western teams have at most 5 wins against the east). So even though Montreal's strong record this past season can be explained in part by weak divisional opponents, they really did hold their own against the western teams. How does Montreal stand up against the west over the whole decade?
Does a perfect record in this case mean 100%, 50% or 0%