not really, when you think about it we have better staff and roughly the same talent maybe better. The best they've got now is geroy simon and he's getting old. We have all rookies, so when they start getting better we're gunna own the CFL for years to come. BC' s full of old farts who are gunna have to retire soon. That's how Wally Buono rolls, he likes to have loads and loads of vets on his team and we like to have rookies who will set us up for years to come on our team. Wat happens when his team starts to retire? they gunna have the exact same problem we had. 5+ years of rebuilding. A team full of vets just doesnt work out the way it used to.
Ok. In another thread your saying we shouldnt bring in vets cuz they old and losing it and here ur saying the fine and are the odds on favourite to win. Which is it? And i'm not trashing their orginization, I'm saying our coaching staff is on the same level, maybe even better. Where the hell do you get scouts outta that?
they wont be thinking its irrelevant when the fans sit thru the BS we had to sit thru with: Oooh we may suck now but in 5 years we might have a playoff ready team. I'd say being the bottom dwellers for like 5 years is a pretty big worry.
Well your argument about the 2009 odds on who will win the Grey Cup are STILL IRRELEVANT!!! Now you are making me repeat my self so I'm gonna stop this debate now because it is getting totally off topic.
umm. Remember 3-5 years ago when we had tons and tons of great vets and didnt wanna sign any rookies? (Rob Hitchcock, Mike Morrealle, etc.)They had the same mentality that it was irrelevant to worry about 2-5 years down the road and just focus on that season and look where it got us. The fans want blood and we're the laughing stock of the CFL. Now that's what i'd call something irrelevant and not worth worrying about.
lol its always something with you. Whether its the fact you ignore my examples and continue to babble on about how right you are and how wrong I am or saying I posted a day late. You made a point, I proved it wrong which you seem to like trying to do with hundreds of other posters.
You proved nothing. GBonds88 commented that the state of the Lions 2-5 years from now is irrelevant IN DETERMINING THE ODDS OF THEM WINNING THE 2009 GREY CUP. It is relevant to the Lions' potential for success in future years, but results from future years have no power to predict the odds for this year.
The term "relevant" requires a context. A point is neither universally relevant or irrelevant: its relevance can only be tested within a certain context. The context GBonds88 established for his comments about relevance was the determination of the odds of BC winning the 2009 Grey Cup.
The Lions can take actions now that will affect their potential for success in future years, and those same actions will surely affect their odds to win the Grey Cup this year. The CONSEQUENCES of those actions (and of other factors outside BC's control) will produce the results that oddsmakers are attempting to predict for any given year.
The Lions' actions this year will have consequences this year and in future years, but the RESULTS of this year, while influenced by some of the same actions that will influence the results for future years, will not be influenced by the RESULTS of future years. GBonds88 rightly makes the point that the RESULTS of future years are irrelevant to determining the odds for this year (despite the existence of factors that will influence the results of more than one year). That doesn't mean that planning for the future is irrelevant to the long-term health of a franchise (the point you seem to be addressing). While the long-term health of a franchise is relevant in a broader context, it is not relevant in the specific context of predicting the winner of the 2009 Grey Cup.
I agree that these are valid arguments when discussing the odds for this year. I think the loss of Wake will have a big impact, the others not so much. I still think a reasonable person would give the Lions better odds of winning the 2009 Grey Cup than the Ticats. But as someone else commented earlier in the thread, the CFL tends to be highly unpredictable.
cheesegod11, you have done absolutely nothing to prove me wrong(as so correctly noted by Mr. safetyblitz) all you keep doing is arguing your points that have nothing to do with what I had to say. You are trying to prove me wrong with a completely different arguement...
I could possibly even agree with you on your BC analogy about how they may be look like we have in 3-5 years, but that does not have any relevance to my original point and therefore you have done absolutely nothing to prove my original comment about the 2009 Grey Cup Odds wrong.
I really hope safetyblitz's comment clears everything up for you now, I would hate to have to try and convince you again that you are arguing the wrong points.
Anyways I hope we can move on now and talk about something to do with Tiger-Cats football, there are no hard feelings here.