Dru Brown

[GCn20]

13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The two headed monster played much better than that lame description.. Both qbs threw for a combined 4,603 yards & 33 touchdowns. But it's the Riders so naturally let's dismiss their play as subpar. The CFL was all abuzz about the way Joe Barnes & John Hufnagel played in 1981. Those guys carried a so so team on their backs all season. They finished 9-7 out of the playoffs as there was no crossover at that time.

They didn't make the playoffs. End of story. I didn't say their play was subpar....I said it was not a two headed monster worthy of mention as one of the great QB tandems. Has nothing to do with the RIders. Go get a Snickers if you're feeling pissy.

12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Yes I remember every Roughrider game that I watched that year (and not all games were televised back then) the announcers were talking about "Barnagel".  They were an effective one-two punch.  The Bombers utilized Hufnagel in that capacity to some extent as well bringing in Huffer when Clements was struggling.  The biggest example of that was the 1984 Grey Cup.  I was always a fan of "mixing things up".

I think that Clements and Huffer tandem was a far better tandem than Barnagel. Just my opinion.

[SpeedFlex27]

11 hours ago, GCn20 said:

They didn't make the playoffs. End of story. I didn't say their play was subpar....I said it was not a two headed monster worthy of mention as one of the great QB tandems. Has nothing to do with the RIders. Go get a Snickers if you're feeling pissy.

I think that Clements and Huffer tandem was a far better tandem than Barnagel. Just my opinion.

 Ni idea why you'd take offense to what I say but it seems you need a Snickers way more than me. Hufnagel & Barnes had a helluva season in 81. They truly were one of the gretest tandems to ever play. Why all the angst?

Like I said, the CFL was so abuzz about their play that they were given a nickname J.J. Barnagel by someone in the media & the name stuck.. Think that would happen if they stunk? It's not always the qbs fault when they lose. The Rider defense wasn't up to par so they gave up a lot of points. With the Bomber tandem, Clements played 75% of the time with Huff coming in for the other 25%. In saskatchewan, Hufnagel played 60% of the time & Joe Barnes about 40%.  So you can't even compare the two tandems. In Saskatchewan, both guys played a lot & played well. 

[GCn20]

12 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

 Ni idea why you'd take offense to what I say but it seems you need a Snickers way more than me. Hufnagel & Barnes had a helluva season in 81. They truly were one of the gretest tandems to ever play. Why all the angst?

Like I said, the CFL was so abuzz about their play that they were given a nickname J.J. Barnagel by someone in the media & the name stuck.. Think that would happen if they stunk? It's not always the qbs fault when they lose. The Rider defense wasn't up to par so they gave up a lot of points. With the Bomber tandem, Clements played 75% of the time with Huff coming in for the other 25%. In saskatchewan, Hufnagel played 60% of the time & Joe Barnes about 40%.  So you can't even compare the two tandems. In Saskatchewan, both guys played a lot & played well. 

They didn't win. I have consistently said for years that's my ultimate measuring stick for QBs. It's why I don't believe Trevor Harris was ever an upper echelon QB for instance. I truly believe that really good offence is good for 10 wins in this league by itself. You wanna go higher than that and then you need defence and ST help. Just my opinion. I remember watching Barnagel, and they were OK. Just in case you think my post is purely Rider hate, the very best QB combo I have ever seen was Austin/Burgess.....now that was a killer combo. I'm not trying to slag Huf/Barnes, just that I think they were average.

Edited March 13 by GCn20

[SpeedFlex27]

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

They didn't win. I have consistently said for years that's my ultimate measuring stick for QBs. It's why I don't believe Trevor Harris was ever an upper echelon QB for instance. I truly believe that really good offence is good for 10 wins in this league by itself. You wanna go higher than that and then you need defence and ST help. Just my opinion. I remember watching Barnagel, and they were OK. Just in case you think my post is purely Rider hate, the very best QB combo I have ever seen was Austin/Burgess.....now that was a killer combo. I'm not trying to slag Huf/Barnes, just that I think they were average.

Like I said, 4600 yards & 33 touchdown passes are better than just okay. If they did that with the Bombers you'd be crowing over their performance.

[GCn20]

13 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Like I said, 4600 yards & 33 touchdown passes are better than just okay. If they did that with the Bombers you'd be crowing over their performance.

Not if they went 9-7.  Like I said, I wouldn't be disappointed either but I like winning better than I like stats. My top two tandems that I measure all others are Austin/Burgess and Holloway/Barnes. Both put up big numbers, both had championships to their name. Not trying to be a bugaboo about it, I just value wins as part of the equation.

Edited March 13 by GCn20

[SpeedFlex27]

Whatever. The Western Conference was very, very strong in 1981. The Esks finished 14-1-1 for first place, The Bombers went 11-5 & finished second. The Lions 10-6 finishing third & the Riders at 9-7 finished fourth in the West.  Combined, the West won 50 regular season games that year & the East just 21.

In 1981, the Montreal Alouettes finished third in the East & made the playoffs with an abysmal 3-13 record. How freaking embarrassing for the CFL was that? The league's credibility was called into question. The Riders won 6 more games than the Als & were fourth in the West yet didn't qualify for the playoffs because there was no crossover. I remember fans & media crying how things needed to change. However, in typical CFL fashion, I remember the league getting right on it by taking another 16 years before it would allow crossovers in the playoffs beginning in 1997.

What happened to the Riders was a travesty. I'm just glad the Bombers never experienced anything close to that back then. Chances are had there been a crossover, the Riders would have been the Eastern representative in the Grey Cup. Who knows, maybe they would have upset the Eskimos as they barely beat the 5-11 Ottawa Rough Riders that year.

But sure, it was the Riders quarterbacking. It was just average. They didn't win.

Edited March 13 by SpeedFlex27

[kelownabomberfan]

8 hours ago, GCn20 said:

Not if they went 9-7.  Like I said, I wouldn't be disappointed either but I like winning better than I like stats. My top two tandems that I measure all others are Austin/Burgess and Holloway/Barnes. Both put up big numbers, both had championships to their name. Not trying to be a bugaboo about it, I just value wins as part of the equation.

Austin/Burgess was really effective for sure.

Hopefully one day "Collaros and Streveler" will be right up there, if they can put together two solid seasons and even another Cup or two.

[Mark H.]

9 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Whatever. The Western Conference was very, very strong in 1981. The Esks finished 14-1-1 for first place, The Bombers went 11-5 & finished second. The Lions 10-6 finishing third & the Riders at 9-7 finished fourth in the West.  Combined, the West won 50 regular season games that year & the East just 21.

In 1981, the Montreal Alouettes finished third in the East & made the playoffs with an abysmal 3-13 record. How freaking embarrassing for the CFL was that? The league's credibility was called into question. The Riders won 6 more games than the Als & were fourth in the West yet didn't qualify for the playoffs because there was no crossover. I remember fans & media crying how things needed to change. However, in typical CFL fashion, I remember the league getting right on it by taking another 16 years before it would allow crossovers in the playoffs beginning in 1997.

What happened to the Riders was a travesty. I'm just glad the Bombers never experienced anything close to that back then. Chances are had there been a crossover, the Riders would have been the Eastern representative in the Grey Cup. Who knows, maybe they would have upset the Eskimos as they barely beat the 5-11 Ottawa Rough Riders that year.

But sure, it was the Riders quarterbacking. It was just average. They didn't win.

 

Context matters. 

[GCn20]

23 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Whatever. The Western Conference was very, very strong in 1981. The Esks finished 14-1-1 for first place, The Bombers went 11-5 & finished second. The Lions 10-6 finishing third & the Riders at 9-7 finished fourth in the West.  Combined, the West won 50 regular season games that year & the East just 21.

In 1981, the Montreal Alouettes finished third in the East & made the playoffs with an abysmal 3-13 record. How freaking embarrassing for the CFL was that? The league's credibility was called into question. The Riders won 6 more games than the Als & were fourth in the West yet didn't qualify for the playoffs because there was no crossover. I remember fans & media crying how things needed to change. However, in typical CFL fashion, I remember the league getting right on it by taking another 16 years before it would allow crossovers in the playoffs beginning in 1997.

What happened to the Riders was a travesty. I'm just glad the Bombers never experienced anything close to that back then. Chances are had there been a crossover, the Riders would have been the Eastern representative in the Grey Cup. Who knows, maybe they would have upset the Eskimos as they barely beat the 5-11 Ottawa Rough Riders that year.

But sure, it was the Riders quarterbacking. It was just average. They didn't win.

9-7 and they would have beat Moon and company....sure whatever. They finished 4th in the West out of the playoffs. Crossover or no crossover this wasn't some dynamo of a team. I didn't say they were average btw, just that they don't deserve the moniker of two headed monster and unstoppable force that people had bandied about. They were a good tandem, nothing more. 

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Context matters. 

True. However, at the end of the day none of that happened. They were the 4th place team in the division and didn't make the playoffs. Everything else is just conjecture. Luck of the draw has not been kind to many, many really good QB performances. The gold standard will always be the ability to win when discussing QBs. It's why Marino is an afterthought to Montana etc. etc.

Edited March 14 by GCn20

[Mark H.]

6 hours ago, GCn20 said:

True. However, at the end of the day none of that happened. They were the 4th place team in the division and didn't make the playoffs. Everything else is just conjecture. Luck of the draw has not been kind to many, many really good QB performances. The gold standard will always be the ability to win when discussing QBs. It's why Marino is an afterthought to Montana etc. etc.

A 3 win team making the playoffs is not just conjecture.  You can't just dismiss some of the points Speed made. 

[SpeedFlex27]

8 hours ago, GCn20 said:

9-7 and they would have beat Moon and company....sure whatever. They finished 4th in the West out of the playoffs. Crossover or no crossover this wasn't some dynamo of a team. I didn't say they were average btw, just that they don't deserve the moniker of two headed monster and unstoppable force that people had bandied about. They were a good tandem, nothing more. 

True. However, at the end of the day none of that happened. They were the 4th place team in the division and didn't make the playoffs. Everything else is just conjecture. Luck of the draw has not been kind to many, many really good QB performances. The gold standard will always be the ability to win when discussing QBs. It's why Marino is an afterthought to Montana etc. etc.

You have no clue. You can stick to your ideology like some feckless zealot while ignoring the facts. The Edmonton Eskimos finished first in a very tough Western Division where a 9-7 Rider team didn't make the playoffs in the West while a 3-13 Montreal team did in the East. The Rough Riders at 5-11 had the the worst record of any team to ever play in the history of the Grey Cup.

The Esks should have blown the doors off of Exhibition Stadium in Toronto with Ottawa yet instead got their asses handed to them in the first half.  The Rough Riders had a 20-1 halftime lead over the Esks.

The Esks charged back scoring two touchdowns in the third quarter & 11 more points in the fourth while the Rough Riders scored only a FG in the second half. It was a Dave Cutler FG with only 3 seconds left that gave Edmonton a 26-23 win. So, do I think the Saskatchewan Roughriders could have beaten them that day had they made it to the GC? Yeah, damned right I do.

Marino's no afterthought. Go have another drink.

Edited March 14 by SpeedFlex27

[kelownabomberfan]

9 hours ago, GCn20 said:

 just that they don't deserve the moniker of two headed monster and unstoppable force that people had bandied about. They were a good tandem, nothing more. 

 

[kelownabomberfan]

41 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

You have no clue. You can stick to your ideology like some feckless zealot while ignoring the facts. The Edmonton Eskimos finished first in a very tough Western Division where a 9-7 Rider team didn't make the playoffs in the West while a 3-13 Montreal team did in the East. The Rough Riders at 5-11 had the the worst record of any team to ever play in the history of the Grey Cup.

I was looking at scores from that season and some interesting facts come out for me:

- Edmonton lost only one game all season - guess who beat them?  Yup, Dieter and Crew, 38 - 28

- I remembered why I grew up thinking "Barnagel" was so good, because Sask came into our barn that year and beat us, one of only two teams to do so at home that year (not counting that uber-crappy Western Semi-Final game).  I remember being very mad after that Sask game.

- We beat Montreal 58-2 that year.  HA HAA HAAA HAAA  I think that game destroyed Vince Ferragamo. 

Edited March 14 by kelownabomberfan

[GCn20]

17 hours ago, Mark H. said:

A 3 win team making the playoffs is not just conjecture.  You can't just dismiss some of the points Speed made. 

You also can't dismiss that wins matter when talking CFL history that wins matter. BTW, if context matters as you say the Riders offence finished 4th overall that year in points scored. Does that sound historically significant to you? I have said all along that the Barnes/Hufnagel combo was a good one...no doubt about it. However, I just don't see them as a historically significant QB tandem....they won nothing. This league has a long history of very good QB tandems and Barnes/Huffer would be somewhere in the middle of the pack imo. I don't care how weak the East was that year and I'm not sure why it even matters? Every West team played the same amount of games vs the East and each other...the Riders finished 4th and out of the playoffs. Also, of the sake of context it should be added that Hamilton finished with the 2nd best record in the CFL that year at 11-4-1 so the argument that a crossover would have resulted in a Cup berth where they would have defeated the Moon and the Edmonton dynasty goes even further out the window.  Simple as that. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle is not context it's a hypothetical reach to justify the fact that Speed has a boner for this duo that didn't get it done in the win column and were defeated in the final game of the season by BC in a game to decide 3rd and final playoff positioning.

Edited March 15 by GCn20

[GCn20]

14 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I ain't dying on any hill. A QB tandem that failed to get their team into the playoffs is not historically significant imo. Sorry, but I don't make the rules of who gets celebrated as a QB and doesn't or that it is almost always tied to Grey Cups and winning. Just ask Kevin Glenn.

[Mark H.]

15 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You also can't dismiss that wins matter when talking CFL history that wins matter. BTW, if context matters as you say the Riders offence finished 4th overall that year in points scored. Does that sound historically significant to you? I have said all along that the Barnes/Hufnagel combo was a good one...no doubt about it. However, I just don't see them as a historically significant QB tandem....they won nothing. This league has a long history of very good QB tandems and Barnes/Huffer would be somewhere in the middle of the pack imo. I don't care how weak the East was that year and I'm not sure why it even matters? Every West team played the same amount of games vs the East and each other...the Riders finished 4th and out of the playoffs. Simple as that. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle is not context it's a hypothetical reach to justify the fact that Speed has a boner for this duo that didn't get it done in the win column.

That's just silly. Of course it's context. A 3 win team was part of the context of that season.

You're also providing context - can we just dismiss it? 

[GCn20]

15 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

That's just silly. Of course it's context. A 3 win team was part of the context of that season.

You're also providing context - can we just dismiss it? 

Ottawa was a 5-11 team not a 3 win team that in last half of the season had brought in a new QB named JC Watts that was playing some really good ball. They beat an 11-4-1 Hamilton TIcat club to get there. That does not mean that the Riders would have, The East was no cakewalk at the top. Hamilton was very, very good and led by Tom Clements and Ben Zambiasi on defence. Obviously Hamilton crapped the bed against Ottawa with Watts running style giving them fits all game. Riders with two pocket QBs would likely have been creamed.

At the end of the day JJ Barnagel had a head to head matchup with the BC Lions for 3rd place overall in the CFL at stake in their final game of the season. They scored 5 points that game, lost and were eliminated from the playoffs. Context does matter.

Edited March 15 by GCn20

[JohnnyAbonny]

Some more context: Ottawa was absolutely jobbed by the officials in that 1981 grey cup game.
They called (actually) the worst OPI I’ve ever seen on Tony Gabriel (on a play where Gabriel himself was interfered with twice) while Ottawa was driving near the end, with a less obvious DPI non-call the next time the Rough Riders got the ball.

We think the refs are bad now and justifiably ***** about the command centre, but the 80s and 90s officials were a different level of terrible. 
 

[Pete Catan's Ghost]

3 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

Some more context: Ottawa was absolutely jobbed by the officials in that 1981 grey cup game.
They called (actually) the worst OPI I’ve ever seen on Tony Gabriel (on a play where Gabriel himself was interfered with twice) while Ottawa was driving near the end, with a less obvious DPI non-call the next time the Rough Riders got the ball.

We think the refs are bad now and justifiably ***** about the command centre, but the 80s and 90s officials were a different level of terrible. 
 

Unfortunately, I missed that part of the game, as, that day, a group of my friends and I enjoyed a large scale experience with electric Kool-Aid (punchbowl version). We lasted with the game until the half, but became far more interested in the wonderful world of Disney on another channel. 

[wbbfan]

4 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

Some more context: Ottawa was absolutely jobbed by the officials in that 1981 grey cup game.
They called (actually) the worst OPI I’ve ever seen on Tony Gabriel (on a play where Gabriel himself was interfered with twice) while Ottawa was driving near the end, with a less obvious DPI non-call the next time the Rough Riders got the ball.

We think the refs are bad now and justifiably ***** about the command centre, but the 80s and 90s officials were a different level of terrible. 
 

Honestly that runs all the way up to the early 2ks. Some of the most baffling calls ever back then. 
 I remember a rtp call for ac in a late season must win type game in 99/2000. Montreal got like 6 cracks at it from the one yard line and got shut down each time. They got an off side call which might’ve been a bit soft but probably fine. But the rtp was egregious. The fans threw stuff on the Field for like 10 minutes and eventually we got a crowd penalty. Mtl scored and won, but I always remember that as a culture defining moment. Ritchies team expected to win and fought like one was against them. It was the light at the end of the dark ages. And as much as it was hating to lose, it was hating to get jobbed. 
 

The stuff defences got away with on milt up till 2001 ish was insane too. A lot of guys got mugged back then, but WRs on bad teams got it like linemen in the 50s. 
 

the blown onside punt call with time running out in dunigans year with Calgary as a hc. 
 
All the insane cheap shots on khari by ed Philion. 

and I saw soo many guys take runs at blinks ankles especially when he had that turf toe injury. 
 

reffing is bad now. But it used to be a serious problem. The deal with the nfl for the option year etc that started the joint ref stuff helped a lot. 

[johnzo]

1 hour ago, Pete Catan's Ghost said:

We lasted with the game until the half, but became far more interested in the wonderful world of Disney on another channel. 

Fellow Fantasia watcher here. 

Edited March 15 by johnzo

[SpeedFlex27]

6 hours ago, GCn20 said:

You also can't dismiss that wins matter when talking CFL history that wins matter. BTW, if context matters as you say the Riders offence finished 4th overall that year in points scored. Does that sound historically significant to you? I have said all along that the Barnes/Hufnagel combo was a good one...no doubt about it. However, I just don't see them as a historically significant QB tandem....they won nothing. This league has a long history of very good QB tandems and Barnes/Huffer would be somewhere in the middle of the pack imo. I don't care how weak the East was that year and I'm not sure why it even matters? Every West team played the same amount of games vs the East and each other...the Riders finished 4th and out of the playoffs. Also, of the sake of context it should be added that Hamilton finished with the 2nd best record in the CFL that year at 11-4-1 so the argument that a crossover would have resulted in a Cup berth where they would have defeated the Moon and the Edmonton dynasty goes even further out the window.  Simple as that. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle is not context it's a hypothetical reach to justify the fact that Speed has a boner for this duo that didn't get it done in the win column and were defeated in the final game of the season by BC in a game to decide 3rd and final playoff positioning.

They won "nothing" because the politics of the CFL at the time wanted an East-West Grey Cup, even if the West won 11 more games than the East had Montreal made it to the Grey Cup. As it stood, the Esks won 9 more games than the Rough Riders. It was politics to do nothing about the imbalance of the East back then for 15-16 more years. The CFL wanted their East-West Grey Cup & they got it. And were ridiculed for it for a decade or more as the subject always came up every year. As far as the 81 Grey Cup went, give credit to Ottawa for punching a fat, sassy & overconfident Eskimo team in the mouth in the first half of the 81 GC. But all it did was wake up the sleeping bear in the second half. 

[johnzo]

59 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

The CFL wanted their East-West Grey Cup & they got it. And were ridiculed for it for a decade or more as the subject always came up every year.

The CFL changed its playoff format in the 1986 to allow four teams in from a single division, but it wasn't with a crossover: instead, the two-team division played a two-game total points series and the four-team division played a 1vs4 and 2vs3 semifinal round. This boned the first place finishers, who didn't get a bye. 

I think I like the modern crossover rule better.  Got to make the regular season meaningful; don't take the bye away from the 1st place team.

[bb1]

The offseason..aint it grand? 😉 What we have here is a failure to communicate....

[johnzo]

5 minutes ago, bb1 said:

The offseason..aint it grand? 😉 What we have here is a failure to communicate....

only 83 days left until the season starts.  Then we can replace the offseason lunacy with regular season lunacy.