Tuesday 30 March 2010

Most Hated Tiger-Cats: #4

#4: Jesse Lumsden
A Hamilton boy, well Burlington actually. A skilled Running Back. Star player for McMaster. Everything was shaping up for Jesse Lumsden to go down as one of the greatest and most beloved Tiger-Cats of all time.

In 4 years with the Tabbies, Lumsden played in 7, 5, 10 and 9 games in each season. You can't be a franchise player playing in just 43% (31 of 72) of the team's games. The guy just couldn't stay healthy.

The worst part? He was highly productive in his limited playing time. In 10 games in 2007, he had 743 yards on only 98 carries. In 9 games in 2008, he had 584 yards on only 87 carries. It's clear that Jesse Lumsden has the skills to play football at a high level in the CFL.

It also didn't help that the guy seemed like a bit of a jerk. I always felt that he had this feeling of superiority to him that, to be honest, rubbed me entirely the wrong way. Even when he was rushing for TDs, I still didn't like him. Maybe it's my UofT roots that make it hard for me to like a McMaster alum, but I don't hate Ray Mariuz, so it can't be that.

There is just something about Jesse Lumsden that I don't like. For that reason, and for his injury problems, he lands at #4 on my list.

PREVIOUS: Brock Ralph (#5)

1 comment:

  1. You have to remember that those first 2 years you mention, he came back from tryouts in the NFL.

    Granted, he did get hurt at both Seahawk and Redskins tryouts.

    JL had all the potential in the world but you knew he couldn't hold up when he was injured a couple times a Mac.

    I was shocked that he actually completed the bobsleigh at the Olympics. Thought for sure he'd mess up his should.

    Last year he doesn't even play 1 quarter for the Eskies and gets hurt.

    I wouldn't say I "hate" JL but I am very disappointed in him.

    In the years where we had Maas, Chang, Printers, etc, just imagine if we had a healthy running back that we actually used? A healthy Lummer would have had us in the playoffs the last 2 years at least.

    ReplyDelete