The Edmonton Elks Are Not Grey Cup Contenders—Stop the Hype

The Mirage of 4-2

Let’s get one thing straight: the Edmonton Elks are not 113th Grey Cup contenders. Not yet. Not even close.

The CFL.ca article touting four reasons the Elks are contenders is either a desperate attempt to generate clicks in a slow news cycle or a fundamental misreading of what a contender looks like. A 4-2 record in July does not a champion make—especially when that record was built against the league’s softest schedule.

Let’s break down Edmonton’s wins: they’ve beaten the 2-4 Ottawa Redblacks, the 1-5 Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the 2-4 Calgary Stampeders, and the 2-4 Saskatchewan Roughriders. That’s a combined 7-17 record from their victims. Their two losses? To the 5-1 Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the 4-2 Toronto Argonauts—the actual contenders in the West and East, respectively.

This isn’t a team that’s proven anything against quality opposition. It’s a team that’s feasted on the CFL’s bottom-feeders and lost to the only two legitimate threats they’ve faced.

“The Elks are 0-2 against teams with winning records. That’s not a contender—that’s a pretender with a good record.”

The Schedule Deception

Edmonton’s remaining schedule doesn’t get easier. They still have two games against the Blue Bombers, a home-and-home with the 4-2 B.C. Lions, and a date with the 4-2 Argonauts. That’s five games against teams currently at .500 or better. If the Elks can’t beat Winnipeg or Toronto now, why should anyone believe they’ll do it in October—or, hypothetically, in November at the Grey Cup?

The advanced metrics tell a different story than the win-loss column. Edmonton ranks fifth in net offence (354.2 yards per game) and sixth in net defence (allowing 378.5 yards per game). Their point differential is +18—respectable, but not dominant. Compare that to Winnipeg (+62) or Toronto (+41), and the gap becomes clear. The Elks are winning close games against bad teams, not dominating anyone.

Special teams have been a bright spot, with kicker Dean Faithfull converting 14 of 16 field goals (87.5%), but that’s not a foundation for a championship run. Neither is a defence that’s allowed 30-plus points twice already—to the Bombers and Argos, the two teams that matter.

The Quarterback Question

The biggest red flag is at the most important position. Tre Ford has been electric at times—his 78-yard touchdown run against Hamilton was a thing of beauty—but he’s still completing just 61.2% of his passes with 6 touchdowns against 4 interceptions. His passer rating of 89.4 ranks seventh among CFL starters. In a league where the top quarterbacks (Zach Collaros, Chad Kelly, Vernon Adams Jr.) are all above 100, Ford is a clear tier below.

The Elks are winning despite their quarterback, not because of him. Ford’s rushing ability masks his inconsistency as a passer, but defences are starting to adjust. The Bombers held him to 168 passing yards and a 58.3% completion rate in Week 2. The Argos held him to 212 yards and two interceptions in Week 5. When playoff defences scheme for him, the magic disappears.

And behind Ford? There’s no proven backup. The Elks have no veteran insurance policy, no Bo Levi Mitchell or Cody Fajardo waiting in the wings. If Ford gets hurt—and he’s a running quarterback, so that’s a real risk—the season evaporates.

The Counter-Argument—and Why It Fails

The CFL.ca article cites four reasons: a strong defence, a balanced offence, special teams excellence, and “team culture.” Let’s address each.

Strong defence? The Elks allow 25.5 points per game—fifth in the league. That’s not strong; it’s average. They’ve forced 10 turnovers, which is good, but they’ve also given the ball away 9 times. That’s a net +1, not a difference-maker.

Balanced offence? Edmonton runs the ball 52% of the time, which is balanced on paper. But their rushing attack averages just 4.6 yards per carry—fourth in the league. That’s solid, not elite. And when they need to throw, Ford’s inconsistency becomes a liability.

Special teams? Faithfull is good, but the return game ranks eighth in kickoff returns and seventh in punt returns. They’re not winning games on special teams.

Team culture? This is the vaguest, least measurable “reason” of all. Every team that wins a few games talks about culture. It means nothing until you prove it against real competition.

“The Elks are a nice story. A feel-good turnaround from last year’s 4-14 disaster. But nice stories don’t win Grey Cups. Execution does.”

The Verdict: Playoff Team, Not Champion

Let me be clear: I’m not saying the Elks are bad. They’re better than last year. They’ll probably make the playoffs. They might even win a playoff game if they draw the right opponent. But calling them Grey Cup contenders in July is irresponsible analysis.

The CFL is a league where the gap between contenders and pretenders is razor-thin, but it’s real. Winnipeg, Toronto, and B.C. have proven they can beat good teams. Edmonton has proven they can beat bad ones. Until they beat a team with a winning record, the hype is just noise.

My prediction: The Elks finish 9-9, lose in the West Semi-Final, and the front office spends the off-season wondering why they couldn’t take the next step. The answer will be obvious to anyone who looked past the record in July.