or who cares?
Especially as neither of them play the same position as Spencer Watt, wide-side receiver.
Speaking of Watt, I think he's doing a pretty fine job given the position he plays. Compare him to some of the other wide-side guys we've had lately, and I think he comes out on top. Not sure if the statistics are there to support my opinion, though.:wink:
Ellingson.. total package, size, speed, hands, smarts. Williams has speed and thats about it. Deadly speed, mind you, but thats it.
Do people think the return of Collaros will have an effect on how frequently Spencer Watt gets targeted?
Please see "Spencer Watt" thread....don't need to duplicate arguments :rockin:
Williams is faster, but Ellingson is better at fundamental receiver stuff - ie. catching, route running, instincts etc.
Neither would be any good at all if it wasn't for Henry Burris throwing them the football. I know that's true because Hank said so!! :lol: :lol: :rockin:
Better? Tough question as they have very different talents and skill sets. It would be like comparing a corvette to a Sierra. Both might be better than the other at their specific task.
Is Greg going to out run the majority of CFL DBs? I would suggest no. CW might though. Is CW going to give you consistent tough, over the middle and among the LBs first downs game in and game out? Probably not much, and not for a full season. Ellingson has proven that he can do just that.
Which leads to the important point, which skill is more valuable? You're not going to get a lot of intermediate yards if you don't have the deep threat guy to streatch the D. But if you depend on guys with all jets and average hands the number of low percentage passes that would be thrown would probably not lead to many wins and lots of 2 and outs. Without a deep threat the D clamps down and doesn't cover deep because they know the bomb is not a significant risk and all possession guys would make for a boring offence (see: Bellefeuille, Marcel style offence; receiver skills be damned.)
All of which leads me to conclude that there are going to be more times in a game where you need a secure catch for a first down over the middle or an intermediate range catch that gets you out of 2nd and short than you will want to put the ball over the top. To me, this makes the Ellingson style guy more valuable to the grinding play in and play out progress of the offence. While the burner is important to open the passing game up, the trusty, reliable all around receiver would be more valuable for the importance of the number of times he would be called upon to make those plays.
To be sure, each guy can do fairly well what the other excels at. Ellingson hauled in a bomb to sink the cats in the playoff last year. Williams often gets that outside come-back at the sideline for a first down. But for me, if I could only have one of those two guys I would choose Ellingson. His reliability and ability to get yards after catch are more valuable than all-out speed with average hands. This makes Ellingson the best receiver on the RB. That to me would be the only way one could conclude that Greg is "better" than CW. And even then I wouldn't be comfortable in making that claim.
Wait a minute...
These two statements are incompatible. If you "wouldn't be comfortable" in concluding that Ellingson is better than Williams, how can you proceed to state that "Ellingson is the best receiver" on the REDBLACKS?
After your very verbose analysis ending in an inconclusive result, it seems you could have saved hundreds of keystrokes and a lot a time by simply posting "I don't know".
When did this forum become a court of law?
On a related sentiment ... Did Collaros and Watt play together in Toronto?
Well, at least this reply has some logic to it. However, you just can't seem to make a point without venom.
If you actually read what I said, it was that Ellingson is the best receiver on the RBs. That doesn't mean he is a "better" receiver than CW. Only that, on that team, Greg is the best receiver for the reasons I stated. I went to pains to say that they are different types of players so it is difficult to compare the two to decide who is "better". In a different system CW might be the best. Nice try though.
Seymour is such a prick lol.. it makes me laugh. I agree with you Billy in regards to Ellingson vs CW. I think Ellingson is better than CW, regardless of how many numbers they put up.
You might want to check your dictionary again for the definitions of "better" and "best". If Ellingson is the best receiver on the Redblacks, then by definition, Ellingson is better than each other Redblacks receiver. Including Williams.
I think, based on your previous post, you mean that each of Ellingson and Williams is better than the other in the role they have on the team (therefore neither is better overall than the other), but if you had to choose one and only one of the two, you would choose Ellingson (best all around).
Better and best are not synonyms. It is a nuanced position that has more to do with how each player contributes to the RBs team than which guy is "better" than the other. I stand by my post.
I despise Chris Williams as a human being therefore I chose Ellingson.
CW broke contract and settled with returning with us in a short term that allowed him to resign with another division rival.
Ellingson was not a case of a player of ours that excelled elsewhere.
He was a fantastic player for us and is continuing that for the Beaver Pelts.
Ability and attitude go hand in hand for me. Ellingson is a pro, Williams is a hired gun.
Excuse me? True, they aren't synonyms, as "better" is a comparative while "best" is a superlative. But by definition, if something is the best of a group, by definition it is better than each member of that group. That's like saying that the biggest box on a table isn't bigger that one of the other boxes on the table.
But I do understand what you were getting at. Each player is better at some things, but not in all things. So depending on the situational requirement, e.g. need to get six yards for the first down vs. need to force the defence to stop cheating up to the line, one or the other will be a better choice for that play.
From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Better - adjective, comparative of good
- more advantageous or effective
Best - adjective, superlative of good
- most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction
Did I miss something ? just wondering why we have a thread on 2 guys that no longer play for us and which one is better than the other. Are we that bored and bereft of things to talk about on these forums that we have to waste time yapping about some other teams players ? The last time I looked neither of these two will be catching any passes anytime soon from any of our quarterbacks , so in answer to the question "who is better" the answer is rather simple really........WHO THE HELL CARES !!!! :cowboy:
I think the better debate is, who would you rather have?
At least you can tell that the thread is about two players who no longer play for us, unlike where this discussion started. And based on the thread title, you can choose to check it out or ignore it, unlike where this discussion started.