Okay, I’m starting a new thread here because there is (understandably) some Cat-bashing going on throughout the forum, and I just want to clear up a few misconceptions that are floating around here, from someone who follows them more closely than most people.
MYTH: Danny McManus is the reason for the Ticats’ poor start.
In fact, if the Cats didn’t have a QB like McManus, things would have been a lot worse. The Cats’ problems are a team problem, specifically an offensive problem. Receivers are running the wrong routes, then dropping passes when they do get to them; the O-line has had trouble opening holes for Troy Davis and has allowed a lot of pressure to get through to Danny. Sure, McManus didn’t play well in the first two games of the season, but the last two he has done everything that he – or any other QB – could do, but the rest of the offence has not done their job.
MYTH: The Ticats’ young defence is weak, particularly with the loss of Cheatwood and Montford.
The Ticat defence has kept them in every game so far this season, despite the fact that the offence has had trouble moving the ball. Sure, we’d like to have Cheatwood back (and likely will before long), and most teams would love to have Joe Montford on their team. The defence has been strong, but has been on the field far too long. Eventually any defence will give up points, and when you turn over the ball deep in your end, expecting the D to keep the other team off the board completely is expecting too much.
MYTH: The signing of Khari Jones threatens Danny Mac’s job.
Not true. Nor does it threaten the job of third-stringer Jon Beutjer. The Ticats are as excited about Jon Beutjer – who also holds for Jamie Boreham’s placekicks – as they are disenchanted with Marcus Brady. Jones coming to the Ticats means that the team FINALLY has a backup they’re not afraid to turn to when McManus struggles. Since Danny got here in 1998, going to the backup meant that the Cats were essentially forfeiting the game. Now that no longer need be the case.
MYTH: The 2005 Ticats are not as good a team as the 2004 Ticats.
This may be a tougher sell for some of you, but really think about it. The Ticats play the exact same games this year as they did last year, but in a different order. Consider the games the Cats have played – and lost – so far this year, and look at how they did in those same games last year, and consider what their record would have been had last year’s schedule been the same as this year’s.
at Montreal (L31-21). Last year: L47-18
Saskatchewan (L23-21). Last year: L32-30
at Saskatchewan (L32-13). Last year: L33-24
B.C. (L28-22). Last year: L49-11
So while their record this year is 0-4, 77 PF, 114 PA, their total record in those same games last year was 0-4, 83 PF, 161 PA. The exact same record! And while the Ticats have scored only 6 points fewer than last year, they’ve allowed 47 fewer. So actually, they’re BETTER than they were last year!
Some called me crazy when I said that the Cats would play a close game against the Lions, and might even pull out a win (though I picked BC in the VGCC.) But the Cats lost by just 3 points, and still had a chance to tie the game at the end. Now I’m saying the game in Edmonton will be closer than a lot of people think (though I still expect the Eskimos to win), and I’m sure people still think I’m crazy.:P And they're probably right. :P
But mark my words: The Eskimos’ biggest threat in the Hamilton game will be their kick returner.