Looking Ahead: Winnipeg Vs BC

[17to85]

13 hours ago, AKAChip said:

Adams is a great receiver right now. 

No he isn't. He's good but he's not great. Or are you just using a looser definition of the term great? Cause great to me means a guy that can put the entire offense on his back and make it happen. The Stegalls or the Simons, Adams ain't at that level and likely never will get there. 

[Judd]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

No he isn't. He's good but he's not great. Or are you just using a looser definition of the term great? Cause great to me means a guy that can put the entire offense on his back and make it happen. The Stegalls or the Simons, Adams ain't at that level and likely never will get there. 

Stegall and Simon are 2 GOATS. Adams is absolutely great, just not generational 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Judd

[Noeller]

this Darvin Adams over-hype is getting insane.

GOATs: Stegall // Pitts

GREAT: Simon // AB3 // Flutie // Elgaard // Mookie Mitchell   etc...

[Nickthesizz]

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

this Darvin Adams over-hype is getting insane.

GOATs: Stegall // Pitts

GREAT: Simon // AB3 // Flutie // Elgaard // Mookie Mitchell   etc...

I would add dressler in the great list

[17to85]

12 minutes ago, Judd said:

Stegall and Simon are 2 GOATS. Adams is absolutely great, just not generational 

I'm sorry but a guy who has never eclipsed 1000 yards in a season is not great and don't give me the pace from last year either, gotta actually do it before you get to be put at that great level. I mean **** he's barely ahead of Harris in receiving yards this season so far. 

Great players are special, Darvin Adams is just another good american receiver that the CFL never has any shortage of. 

[sweep the leg]

34 minutes ago, Noeller said:

this Darvin Adams over-hype is getting insane.

GOATs: Stegall // Pitts

GREAT: Simon // AB3 // Flutie // Elgaard // Mookie Mitchell   etc...

Simon belongs on the other list.

[Noeller]

Nope.....he was a really good receiver, but he's also really overrated. He didn't change the game the way the other two did...

[blue_gold_84]

18 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Nope.....he was a really good receiver, but he's also really overrated. He didn't change the game the way the other two did...

How is the CFL's all-time receiving yards leader "overrated"...? There's no way he isn't in the same conversation as Stegall or Pitts.

Edited July 18, 2017 by blue_gold_84

[Taynted_Fayth]

13 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Nope.....he was a really good receiver, but he's also really overrated. He didn't change the game the way the other two did...

I dunno, I'd cut him some slack. Anytime you can break significant records (Most receiving yards and 1st in receptions) in a league with such a long history, winning a few cups and a MOP award, I'd say he deserves to be in the upper echelon. He was certainly better than the other "greats" you listed

[Booch]

Simon kinda got where he did due to longevity more than being just flat out exceptional.

Looking at stats Simon played 237 games, Pitts 176 games and Milt played 199

Simon's yards were 16 352 for 15.9 average on 1029 receptions 103 TD'S

Pitt's yards were 14891 for 15.4 average on 966 receptions 117 TD'S

Stegall yards were 15154 for 17.7 average on 854 receptions 144 TD's

Looking at that Stegall is undoubtedly the best of all time....did all his in less games, less catches and with so many different QB's a good majority of who were garbage. It's not even a debate. That doesn't even put into consideration his insane TD numbers which will never be matched.

Pitt's is very comparable yardage wise but played in a time they used primarily 4 receivers so seen more balls come his way hence his higher number of receptions even though he played fewer games

 

[Taynted_Fayth]

without a doubt I'd put Stegall and Pitts ahead of Simon, but the fact still remains he's in the conversation, likely considered 3rd on the GOAT list

[AKAChip]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

No he isn't. He's good but he's not great. Or are you just using a looser definition of the term great? Cause great to me means a guy that can put the entire offense on his back and make it happen. The Stegalls or the Simons, Adams ain't at that level and likely never will get there. 

Yes it really depends on your definition of great. If you'd like, I can call him very good. He is at this point in time not as good as Dressler but infinitely better than Denmark. 

[Noeller]

16 minutes ago, Booch said:

Simon kinda got where he did due to longevity more than being just flat out exceptional.

Looking at stats Simon played 237 games, Pitts 176 games and Milt played 199

Simon's yards were 16 352 for 15.9 average on 1029 receptions 103 TD'S

Pitt's yards were 14891 for 15.4 average on 966 receptions 117 TD'S

Stegall yards were 15154 for 17.7 average on 854 receptions 144 TD's

Looking at that Stegall is undoubtedly the best of all time....did all his in less games, less catches and with so many different QB's a good majority of who were garbage. It's not even a debate. That doesn't even put into consideration his insane TD numbers which will never be matched.

Pitt's is very comparable yardage wise but played in a time they used primarily 4 receivers so seen more balls come his way hence his higher number of receptions even though he played fewer games

 

yeah this is basically where I'm coming from. It's kinda like why I don't consider Damon Allen (....also kinda Burris...) as one of the great QBs of all time....

[Mark F]

21 minutes ago, Booch said:

Simon kinda got where he did due to longevity more than being just flat out exceptional.

In sports, I think an aspect of " greatness"  can be longevity.

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Mark F

[AKAChip]

This is all getting screwed up by individual people's definitions. I obviously don't think Darvin Adams is even in the same stratosphere as Milt Stegall. 

[Seekoy]

I like how TSN lists us as having no key injuries in their power rankings article.

Yes, missing 3 starters on defence, Wild/Okpalaugo/Johnson (replaced with a mostly struggling rookie) are not key.

Yet the Riders are missing Chad Owens as a "key" player.

 

 

 

[Taynted_Fayth]

11 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

This is all getting screwed up by individual people's definitions. I obviously don't think Darvin Adams is even in the same stratosphere as Milt Stegall. 

back to Adams, IMO the biggest thing that separates good from great is consistency,  something Adams has yet to show

[do or die]

1 minute ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

back to Adams, IMO the biggest thing that separates good from great is consistency,  something Adams has yet to show

B-I-N-G-O

[sweep the leg]

29 minutes ago, Booch said:

Simon kinda got where he did due to longevity more than being just flat out exceptional.

 

I disagree. The totals he put up in his prime  (2003-2011) were exceptional.  He was an afterthought for two seasons early in his career behind the established vets in Winnipeg and played 28 games when he was older than Pitts when he retired, so the longevity wasn't a huge boost to his stats.

 

[Booch]

it's about games played really...and averages per catch..game..season...what have you

He played the equivalent of 2+ yrs more than Milt and Almost 3 more than Pitts.

Give those 2 guys those extra games/years worth of stats and Simon would be a distant 3rd, but still exceptional...just not the best 

[Fan Boy]

Simon would have been a better player if he stayed a Bomber right? But it is true that Milt got stuck with some awful QB's and look at his production. 

Actually I want to say that although I haven't got access to team game video so I am shooting in the air here that Dressler is so wide open a lot of times that there has to a be a pick or a rub. That takes out another receiver from action as well as a defender. So someone's receiver stats are going to suffer. 

[17to85]

57 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

Yes it really depends on your definition of great. If you'd like, I can call him very good. He is at this point in time not as good as Dressler but infinitely better than Denmark. 

I am not sure he is that much better than Denmark to be honest. some big stats in a few games last year doesn't really change my opinion on that, he's gotta show the consistency to be able to do that for a whole season before he gets those accolades. 

[17to85]

12 minutes ago, Booch said:

it's about games played really...and averages per catch..game..season...what have you

He played the equivalent of 2+ yrs more than Milt and Almost 3 more than Pitts.

Give those 2 guys those extra games/years worth of stats and Simon would be a distant 3rd, but still exceptional...just not the best 

Can you imagine what Stegall might have done if he'd played with a qb like Dickenson as well? I mean **** Stegall put up big numbers with Kevin Glenn... Only real top guy Stegall had was Jones for a few years and they broke the record book... 

[SPuDS]

Just now, 17to85 said:

Can you imagine what Stegall might have done if he'd played with a qb like Dickenson as well? I mean **** Stegall put up big numbers with Kevin Glenn... Only real top guy Stegall had was Jones for a few years and they broke the record book... 

If Stegall played for anyone but us, I think he would have set some ridiculous records.  we gave the poor guy some of the worst QBs ever.   He still re-wrote record books.  I don't think it can be said enough just how impressive and "next level" Stegall was for the CFL.  If he had a Dickenson or a Burris or the like for extended seasons, my god. 

[17to85]

1 minute ago, SPuDS said:

If Stegall played for anyone but us, I think he would have set some ridiculous records.  we gave the poor guy some of the worst QBs ever.   He still re-wrote record books.  I don't think it can be said enough just how impressive and "next level" Stegall was for the CFL.  If he had a Dickenson or a Burris or the like for extended seasons, my god. 

and you lost me. At least use a guy like Calvillo or Ray as an example not that over rated prima donna.