Our QB Depth

OK, so a couple of threads have been taken off topic because it seems a few posters from other teams are pretty upset about a claim I made IN THE OFF SEASON.
I had claimed that our QB depth might been the envy of the league. We have Brink/Elliott/Goltz all behind Buck (at that time anyways). I still feel that our DEPTH is better than most (if not all). I keep asking the question, but no one has answered it yet....What team has better QB prospects than us? What team would not take Goltz as their 4th stringer, hell he might even be 3rd or 2nd on some!
I'm not comparing starters - I'm talking about DEPTH!
I'll wait for your answers.....

You took some unfair flak for that, IMO. I seem to recall lots of posters mentioning we
Were sure to lose a backup to Ottawa once the expansion draft happens. I thought Calgary had great depth with Tate and Glenn but its starting to look like Tate is made of the same stuff as Buck. Lol

I agree that overall Calgary has the best 1-2 punch. Having Glenn as a back up is great. But I wouldn't consider Glenn a prospect. Who does Calgary have beyond Glenn?

Can you define what you mean by QB depth?

Do you mean all QBs on a team's roster, including the starter? Only the three QBs active for a given game? Everyone but the no. 2? Or completely unproven prospects?

I thought it was pretty obvious in my post. Read it again....

I think we have the best depth at QB…We can only protect 1 QB,right? So maybe having the best 1-2 QB punch, like Cal., isn’t so great. Who do they protect?.. I think Glenn might end up in Ottawa.

…either him or Brink :wink:

To answer the OP, Brink seems to have been found wanting by his own team, since he has been demoted. Elliott does appear to have decent potential. now we'll see if it can be realized. As for Goltz, who knows whether he is or isn't any better than any other team's fourth-stringer, but regardless, what does it matter? How many fourth-stringers ever end up starting? Toronto has two young guys they like a lot -- are they worse or better than Goltz? No one knows until all of them get to actually play.

I think most fans knew Brink would get a few games, and Elliott needed to get a few games. In Buck's absence we needed to see what we have in these 2. I don't think it was what Brink was unable to do, I still think he was put in a rough position to try and make his claim. Reagrdless it's time to see what Elliott can do now.
Another point to make is that it usually takes a young QB a couple years with the org before they can start to make contributions. When I made this offseason claim it was due to the fact there weren't many out there as a young QB prospect with some experience and potential. We had 3.

Offseason claim? So you no longer stand by your post (today) suggesting every other team would want Goltz to be No. 4, if not No. 2 or 3?

Oh brother... :roll:

Lots of pot-stirrers around these days...

Yes, my head is getting sore from banging it on the desk over and over....
Notice how they all seem to come out when we struggle?
Where will they all be after we win 4 straight? :smiley:

To answer the question, I'm a little disappointed with how Brink has done so far this year, but my opinion of our QB depth remains the same. Who else has a 3rd/4th stringer with youth and CFL experience?
I'm not sure why so many are threatened with this claim....

I'm not so sure papa. . . I think Brink may have played himself out of a chance of being picked up by Ottawa. My guess is, of the backups in the league who will likely be available, Reilly in BC and that Harris kid in Toronto might go 1,2 (Reilly to start, Harris as backup). . . but that leaves out McPherson in Montreal, who I expect they'll protect over AC who would probably retire if Ottawa picked him. Frankly, given his play so far, I think Brink probably ranks about even with Porter in Hamilton.

Question is which QB will Winnipeg protect? Right now it looks like a choice between Buck and Joey; we'll begin to get a clue after Thursday. . .

Actually, part of the claim was "What team would not take Goltz as their 4th stringer, hell he might even be 3rd or 2nd on some!" That seems quite a bit different than "Who else has a 3rd/4th stringer with youth and CFL experience?"

I responded to the original post by saying nobody knows how good anyone's fourth-stringer is until they get to play, and suggesting that few fourth-stringers ever end up starting. So I ask again, are you sticking to the belief that Goltz is demonstrably better than everyone else's fourth-stringer, and some of the second- and third-stringers? If so, on what is this belief based?

I know, I know !!

They'll be in the same bar having drinks with housedog and sanjay. . .

it is based on the belief that a dependable backup would need to have some time with the club (more than 1 year holding the clipboard) in order to have a good chance of succeeding. Since noone is able to dispute my claim, I’ll give it a shot:

BC - Lulay fantastic starter, Mike Reilly - been around for a few years, young. About on par with Brink/Elliott. Goltz 3rd here, easy
EDM - Jyles, Joseph, bit of a 1-2. Matt Nichols been around the team, on par with Goltz
Cal - Tate & Glenn, great 1-2 punch. Sinopoli, 2nd year with the team, but hasn’t seen time. Close, but I’d put Goltz ahead.
Sask - Durant and a couple rookies. An old man and Drew Willy who may be good, but at this point inexperienced. Glotz may even be 2nd here
Ham - Burris and Porter. Goltz 3rd as he is more game ready than Lefevour
Tor- Ray and Jackson, Harris a newbie, some are high on, but hasn’t been around long enough - Goltz more game ready
Mont - AC, McPherson, and a carousel. Goltz 3rd here easy.

** my info is based on the CFL player stats, so if there are any mistakes don’t jump down my throat!

There we go. Again my claim was a bit of bragging that we have 3 backups that have been around the team for awhile, that have each gotten meaningful time on the field and thrown TD’s, that are each ready for the next step.

Whatever marginal advantage you might have with your backups is negated by the fact that your starter can't stay healthy and isn't particularly good even on the first Tuesday of every month when he is healthy. Raving about your backup depth as an abstraction, without comparing your starter to the rest of the league, is fallacious: a team evaluates its QB situation by looking at (guess what?) all its QBs, not just a subset of QBs carefully winnowed so that fans can feel good about their team.

...I'm going to disagree with your Calgary assessment LGB, Bo Levi Mitchell is our #2 backup at this point and I would take both him and Sinopoli over Goltz in a sec...you're basing this on stats, and Goltz frankly doesn't have many...while his rating is high (+124) this is based off 3 completions in 6 attempts, not really valid...he does have more stats than Sinopoli (who in the stat department simply flatlines) but I'd take a Canadian QB over Goltz still, just because...

...no slam on Goltz, but he doesn't make the stampeder squad right now...

I wan't raving. I made the original comment months ago. I made another comment about most WPG fans expecting our D to be better than our O and you didn't seem to agree (surprise), thinking (wrongly) that because I felt we had QB depth, I must have thought we were going to have an offensive juggernaut. Far from the truth.
Why is it so hard for you to just admit we have depth at the position without some sort of jab? I agree that there is a neccessity for depth due to buck's penchant for getting hurt, but that doesn't make the depth any less.

R&W - Fair enough. What is it in Mitchell you are high on? Do you have faith in him playing this week? AS I stated, usually a QB needs to be around for a while to get the game and learn the system. Can Bo do that already that you would put him above Goltz? If so, unlike others, I can accept your opinion. And Kudos to you guys for developing a Canadian.