POW

Wow, Montreal gets 3 POW's in a game that they were lucky to win. They give up 32 points against a team without it's starting QB and 2 players on the defensive side of the ball get awards.

Were the selectors asleep for the rest of the games?

So who do you think should have won instead? Do you think POWs should only come from teams that win? I ask because you make a point of saying "a game that they were lucky to win," which leads me to believe that if they lost, they would not have been chosen. If that is the case, who had a better offensive performance on the Cats, Riders and Eskimos than Calvillo? Were any Canadians better on those three teams than Emry? Did one of them have a defensive player stand out more than Brown?

Or do you think that players should be up for the award regardless of if their team won or lost? I suspect you do (I do as well), and if that is the case, then who would you have chosen for the awards aside from the Montreal players?

It is easy to criticize the picks that were made, but I think it is only fair for you to pick who should have given the awards, in your opinion, instead of the Calvillo, Emry and Brown.

Nobody has said the awards should only go to the winning teams so get off that tangent.

Starting with offensive award I would have picked Hugh Charles with 191 total yards or Chris Matthews with 171 yards receiving. I have never subscribed to the theory that only Quarterbacks can win this award, perhaps you do.

For the defensive award, I would take several players ahead of Brown. Woodny Turenne of Saskatchewan had a great night with 9 individual tackles. I would also have gone with Ron Williams or J.C. Sherritt ahead of Brown.

I can't particularly argue with Emry as no Canadians, Emry included stood out. Perhaps this would be a good time to go with an O lineman instead.

Nobody could argue with the choice of Williams for special teams.

Ok, ease up. I only made the winning-team comment because of what you said about the Als. It wasn't a tangent; I was just wanted you to clarify your position.

Matthews would have made an excellent choice, so would Charles. Were they better than Calvillo? Maybe, but it wouldn't have been a slam dunk. And of course I don't think only QBs should win the award. I don't like how QBs have dominated the MOP award (Jamel Richardson should have been MOP last year), so I certainly do not think they should be the only players up for Offensive Player of the Week.

I didn't see any standout performances on defense this week and that's probably why Brown won. Nine tackles is impressive, but DBs are not supposed to be getting that many tackles. And there was no way Sherritt was going to win. The lasting memory of him from Friday's game was the hit on Brink and there are too many people who think the hit was dirty for him to be awarded for his game.

I agree on Canadians. The only other Canadian I noticed that did anything was Andy Fantuz, but 71 yards and a touchdown does not a player of the week make. Maybe an o-lineman should have been rewarded, but it is always difficult to judge who did well, unless you watch the games more than once.

And no, you cannot debate Williams for special teams player. Tristan Jackson had the award until Williams went off on the Argos a couple of hours later.

I think maybe the panel that votes on this should put out their final ballots to see who garnered what support. The three Montreal players may have won the awards, but they may have done so by only a vote or two (I'm going to assume that Williams was a unanimous choice).

If Williams was not unanimous, they should be replacing someone on the panel.

I just feel that on a day where Montreal’s defense was arguably the worst of all the game winner’s (don’t take that as anything but a comparible.) Two of the POW’s were selected from that squad.

Disagree totally on the Sherritt hit, this is the first time I have seen or heard anyone suggest that it was dirty, have to read through the game comments from Saturday.

OK there was one comment, said the hit was vicious, not dirty. Wonder who that was? :lol:

No doubt it was a big hit, I did not think it was dirty, nor did the TSN commentators. One thing for sure is Brink needs to learn to hook slide.

I don't think it was a dirty hit either. It was close, but it wasn't anything like the Sears-Jyles play from a year ago. I just brought it up as a possible reason why some of the voters (some of who may have thought it was a dirty hit) didn't or wouldn't vote for Sherritt.

I agree with you about Montreal's defense too. I didn't think they were particularly impressive. They were OK in the first half, but that could be due to the Stamps not playing well on offense. This was one of those weeks were I wasn't sure who would win the awards (with the exception of Williams) and I was surprised that the Als took home three of them. I actually didn't think anyone (again, with the exception of Williams) had one a standout performance. There were a lot of very good performances and perhaps that is why the Als were picked. Perhaps there were so many votes that the Als players picked up two compared to one for everyone else.

As far as Williams being unanimous, perhaps Glen Suitor (or maybe, god forbid, cflisthebest) gets a vote. I'm sure he could justify why Jackson's return was more impressive than Williams' two returns. :lol:

I certainly was surprised to see Calvillo as offensive player of the week -- his stats don't really tell the whole story of the game IMO. However, Emry and Brown both had monster games. Emry was a tackling beast, involved in many plays at the line as well as on special teams. Brown was also a force in the secondary, and it was his veteran pick on Glenn that put us in position to win the game.