Collaros Don't Get No Respect

This is a poll of FANS. What do the opposing COACHES have to say.
As fans we don't know all the facts and only go with what we see. Last year I thought, and still do, that the play calling from the bench was a major problem. Hope they solved that; and I also hope the first 6 games are not an extension of training camp. But then, if it works...

Of course Collaros needed to be included in the poll but he's ranked where he should be. He hasn't accomplished much yet. Tons of potential but few accomplishments. Two years from now, he'll be leading this poll.

An Argo-Cat fan

Hasn't accomplished much???

He led our team to a Grey cup game last season. That's more than seven other quarterbacks in this league accomplished.

He also missed half a season because of injury.

Pretty good for a player in his rookie year as the starter for the Tiger cats with a new coaching staff, playbook and teammates to adjust to as well.

Perhaps, you were disappointed in him. I sure wasn't.

Brandon Banks lead our team to a grey cup.

Without special teams and defense hamilton wouldn't have made the playoffs.

You are exactly right, the offense didn't do much at all it was them great run backs by Banks that did more than anything to get the team in the playoffs and it was Banks that almost single handed could have won the GC. And yes of course the defense who forced them turnovers in the playoffs and who shut down the offense and forced the punts that Banks ran back.
Collaros hasn't played one full season yet and people are rating him number 5 in the league?? :roll:
That's a high rating for a guy that only started a few games last year.

Thank you for my daily moment of hilarity. Let's try your ASSumption for ONE game this year. We will play Defence and Special Teams ONLY, and to heck with Offence. I betcha we lose by a LOT.

Each phase of the game depends on the other two. The Ti-Cats scored a lot of points, gained a lot of yards, and ate up a lot of time-of-possession on Offence this year. Special Teams did not magically move the football from our 1-yd-line to our opponent's 35-yd-line so that JT can attempt a FG. Andy Fantuz, Luke Tasker, Bakari Grant, et al would not have scored their touchdowns without playing on Offence (and Bakari would not have been able to present to Bob Young the football with which he scored the first TD at THF).

So, while your comment is "technically true", it is not "correct", in the sense that it takes ALL THREE PHASES (Offence, Defence, and Special Teams) to win football games. Think of it like a 3-legged bar stool: cut off one leg, and the stool falls over...

And NO, Speedy B alone didn't "lead" us to the Grey Cup, Collaros did. Banks played an important part, but without Zach's skills and toughness (both mental and physical), we would have been hard-pressed to even make it to the playoffs.

I have no skin in this "fight", but your comment lacks logic. It is true of any of the three phases.

I will say that Collaros' performance last season was "better" than just TrentDilfer-ish, but one Grey Cup does not an elite QB make.

By this results-based logic then, I assume you believe Collaros should be rated the #2 QB in the league and Jonathan Crompton should be rated above Ricky Ray and Henry Burris since Montreal made the playoffs and Toronto and Ottawa didn't.

Tous les sondages faits à ce temps-ci de la saison n'ont aucune pertinence.

Pour ma part, je place ainsi les 5 meilleurs quarts partants de la LCF lorsqu'ils sont en santé :

  1. Lulay
  2. Mitchell
  3. Reilly
  4. Durant
  5. Collaros

Ce n'est qu'une impression personnelle et votre opinion vaut bien la mienne.

Évidemment, cette vision pourra changer selon ce que chacun fera cette saison. Je crois sérieusement que Collaros réussira à grimper de quelques crans dans cette échelle, mais il a encore certaines choses à prouver. Il a cependant tout ce qu'il faut pour ça. Seul point d'interrogation : saura-t-il demeurer en santé? Collaros demeure un petit quart-arrière. Les coups font donc plus de dommage chez lui, même si c'est un gars solide. Je crois qu'avec le temps, il va réussir à mieux se protéger et devenir un quart dominant dans cette ligue, s'il demeure en santé.

Je pense que Collaros a plus de respect chez les supporteurs de la LCF que ce sondage ne l'indique. Mais il demeure qu'il faut aussi accorder aux autres quarts le crédit qui leur revient, ce qui ne diminue pas en soi l'estime qu'on peut avoir pour Collaros.

Personally, I wouldn't rate Reilly that high, and I would rate Collaros higher. Remember, he missed 6 games due to a concussion. For those only using stats to compare QBs, Collaros' extrapolated stats would place him, IMHO, just behind BLM for the League lead.

Ask & you shall receive ... Extrapolated #'s:

Ray = 270
Collaros = 250
Mitchell = 199
Reilly = 195
Durant = 179

Comp %
Ray = 68.5
Collaros = 65.8
Reilly = 64.6
Mitchell = 63.3
Durant = 60.5

Mitchell = 8.12
Durant = 7.85
Collaros = 7.69
Reilly = 7.45
Ray = 7.41

Durant = 12.98
Mitchell = 12.83
Collaros = 11.68
Reilly = 11.55
Ray = 10.81

Ray = 1.64
Mitchell = 1.29
Collaros = 1.15
Reilly = .94
Durant = .8

Ray = .88
Collaros = .69
Reilly = .64
Durant = .5
Mitchell = .47

TD/INT Ratio
Mitchell = 2.75
Ray = 1.86
Collaros = 1.66
Durant = 1.6
Reilly = 1.45

QB Rating
Mitchell = 98.3
Ray = 95.1
Collaros = 91.9
Reilly = 88.7
Durant = 87.8

30+ Yard completions/Game
Ray = 1.41
Reilly = 1.23
Durant = 1.1
Mitchell = 1.05
Collaros = .92

2D Conversions By Pass/Game
Ray = 5.82
Collaros = 5.53
Mitchell = 4.70
Reilly = 4.58
Durant = 3.6

Thanks for the extrapolated #'s FG69

These #'s would put Collaros as a solid top 3 QB, and to think I had him as a top 5. :oops:

I'd say he was guaranteed to be top 5, based on the methodology. However, guys like Burris, Willy, Glenn and Crompton might propose modifications to the list.

Apologies ... my bad as far as only including the Top 5 ... I just assumed that's who we were talking about and I just provided the Top 5 as far as QB Rating.

Anyways ... here's the full list ...

[url=] ... KS2014.png[/url] [url=] ... treal.html[/url]

The only time stats have significance is at contract renewal time for the player. Ask some Tiger cat players how happy they were to finish second in the Grey Cup game.

Yes, results matter, especially to those in the game.

But, let's say statistics are more important.

Look at the numbers that Fender Guy came up with for last season. Thank you, FG.

Out of 10 categories that he listed on this thread, Zach placed second in 4 of them and third in 5. Only once did he position in last place among the top 5. Statistically, Zach Collaros should be at least 3rd, if not 2nd.

Certainly, not 4th or 5th.

Let's also remember that professional sports is also a "what have you done for me lately" business too.

Interesting stats from blogskee.

My take on the chart:

  • Collaros and Crompton were in 12 and 13 games respectively. those games Collaros had half the # of interceptions that Crompton had.

  • Crompton had one more TD than Collaros despite the fact that our porous O-Line allowed Collaros to be sacked 8 (?) times.

  • Collaros has a better winning percentage of starts.

These stats mean something.

However the chart also NOT show the results of the many bad play calls our offence had v Montreal's play calling. I would say Collaros had to be much more innovative and nimble to be only one TD behind Crompton. And the chart does not show that we were in the Grey Cup last and Montreal was not!

I admit the chart is fun to draw up but there are far too many irrelevant percentages and ratio numbers (eg 30 yard whatever...blah blah) that go into that affect that bizarre and meaningless QB rating number.

Collaros and Crompton are both good QB's with lots of potential. But to base their performance on specious stats from 12 or 13 games might be a great off-season pastime number crunchers but it hardly reflects the reality of the season. As oldfan correctly points out, it's the results that really matter.

In my first post on this thread I called the present rankings worthless. I stick by that.

A couple points ...

The chart I posted are rankings ... it ranks each QB in each category on a per game basis. Ie; QB with most TD's per game is ranked #1 (Ray) and QB with the fewest INT's per game is ranked #1 (Durant) and so on ...

A question was posed to extrapolate the numbers ... that is all I did. I responded to a question posed and since I had the numbers from an earlier article I wrote, I posted them. I never made any conclusions or used them to support or refute any individual's argument or position. I just provided what someone was looking for ... that's it.

As far as numbers/statistics in general ... again I am not proclaiming that they are the be all and end all in any way, shape or form. I understand how "hot" of a topic stats & analytics are in sports. Just listen to an hour or two of sports talk radio and you'll undoubtedly hear a debate about them.

As far as calculating QB or Passer Rating ... here's the formula.

a = ((completions / passing attempts) – 0.3) x 5

b = ((passing yards / passing attempts) – 3) x 0.25

c = (touchdown passes / passing attempts) x 20

d = 2.375 – ((interceptions / passing attempts) x 25)

If any of a, b, c, or d are less than ‘0’, then they calculated as 0.

If any of a,b,c, or d are more than 2.375, then they are calculated as 2.375.

Passer Rating = ((a + b + c + d) / 6) x 100

There are lots of online calculators where you can input real time info during the game and get a QB/Passer Rating.

[url=] ... alculator/[/url]


FenderGuy: OK...thanks for the clarification. I did appreciate the chance to match up some of the numbers.
Analytics...yes.It's big business for companies that compile that stuff. Real fodder for sports yak stations for sure. If you read "Baseball for Brain Surgeons" by the very clever Tim McCarver, he discusses the creation and importance of stats to the game...but baseball thrives more on probabilities than any other sport I can think of.
I don't discount all stats but sometimes it's easy to forget that the QB is not a world unto himself. As last year's O-line quite often showed.