Steinberg's MMQB: Five no-brainer CFL All-Star picks

Monday is the launch of the CFL All-Star Fan Vote, which takes place all month long.

For the first time, you get a chance to vote alongside CFL head coaches and media members to help determine Division and League All-Stars at the end of the year. With no desire to influence YOUR ballot, here are five players that are absolutely getting my first-place vote.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Zach Collaros has not been the CFL's best quarterback all season long. Nathan Rourke was blowing him out of the water in every category before suffering a season-ending injury.

Zach certainly is the best QB in the league right now, but he hasn't held that title all season as the article claims.

Bomber fan, but I think I can reluctantly agree. Maybe not the blowing hm out of the water part. But probably ahead of Zach at the time..

Nathan Rourke was injured in week 12. The Bombers have played four games since then (three of them against the Riders). In those four games, Collaros has completed 73 passes of 108 attempts for 1125 yards, 12 TDs and 2 INTs. If you subtract those numbers from his current stats, then you get where he was at the end of week 12:

Collaros: 213/304 for 2749 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs in 11 games played
Rourke: 248/313 for 3281 yards, 25 TDs , 10 INTs in 9 games played

As you can see, Rourke was well ahead of Collaros in both yards and touchdowns with two fewer games played. I suppose it's still debatable whether this unambiguously qualifies as "blowing him out of the water", but it took Zach an additional two games (against one of the worst teams in the league right now) to catch up in TDs and another game after that to surpass him in yards.

Make no mistake, Collaros is having a heck of a season and is hands-down the best active QB in the league right now. But it still took him nearly 50% more time to get to the same point Rourke was at. I have little doubt that if Nathan hadn't been injured, he'd be getting the unanimous vote for CFL All-Star instead of Zach.

Fair points. Again, I don't strongly disagree, just with term blowing him out of the water. So, just as a counter-point, in the only head to head meeting between the two I'd suggest there is no contest as to who was better on the day and who came away with the win. 76.7 % vs 62.5%. 3 tds 0 Int Collaros. 3 and 2 for Rourke. Efficiency 139.31 v 86.07. Bombers still undefeated at the time. Head to head is important in my book, but admittedly only one game. Anyway, I believe we are 95% in agreement. But it's fun to discuss.

1 Like

so what if Rourke comes back this season?

If we're using head-to-head games to compare QBs, then Dane Evans is vastly superior to Zach Collaros. And I think both of us recognize the ridiculousness of that statement. A QB's greatness (or any player's for that matter) can never be accurately measured over a single game.

1 Like

Of course, but I wasn't pulling out 1 random game by a random QB. I was comparing the 2 obvious front runners until Rourke's injury, and what hey did when they played head to head. Not to mention the obvious, which is that Collaros does the most important thing a QB can do. Deliver wins. Rourke was doing that too until he played the Bombers. Anyway, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I generally agree, just saying it was closer than you gave credit. I love Rourke's talent and can't wait to see him playing again. He is awesome.

I still have no doubt that Collarous is presently the most successful QB playing in the CFL. However as of late he does not seem to actually be performing at the level he was at the start. Maybe more teams are starting to read him better, but he has lost twice in the last month or so against eastern teams. And some of the wins were barely won . Had Nathan Rourke not gotten hurt, one has to feel he would be hands down leader over Collarous.

If Rourke doesn’t get injured he is hands down the MOP. He is already the MOC this season and there is a decent argument for MOP still. Glad I am not on the voting committee because I am not sure who I would vote for.