Blue Bombers Forum

 ;D

I'll ask in the 3rd conversation, how would we accommodate that in the ratio on the roster. How we we accommodate that in the ratio of starters?

It's clearly not as simple of just adding him to the roster whether we want to or note.

Remove Cobb, AR a Nat DB/LB backup, and put Nichols on RR and use Vaval to start.

Quote from: theaardvark on Today at 04:25:57 PMRemove Cobb, AR a Nat DB/LB backup, and put Nichols on RR and use Vaval to start.

Many have questioned whether we want to put Vaval in a dual role. He's played CB and I'm not sure if he's suited for DHB or even better than Nichols. Moxey seems to be the liability as well. I'd switch him at CB but that's only part of the issue.

Regardless, you have not shown how to change the number of Canadian starters. You're suggesting adding a back up for a starter and that doesn't work from those specifically starting.

We show 2 imports at DT starting however we rotate in Schmekel, Gatkouth and Kornelson on the DL and Smith at LB. One of those would have to be on the field on every down to make up for that 7th Canadian.

Quote from: Blue In BC on Today at 04:40:23 PMMany have questioned whether we want to put Vaval in a dual role. He's played CB and I'm not sure if he's suited for DHB or even better than Nichols. Moxey seems to be the liability as well. I'd switch him at CB but that's only part of the issue.

Regardless, you have not shown how to change the number of Canadian starters. You're suggesting adding a back up for a starter and that doesn't work from those specifically starting.

We show 2 imports at DT starting however we rotate in Schmekel, Gatkouth and Kornelson on the DL and Smith at LB. One of those would have to be on the field on every down to make up for that 7th Canadian.

Between all of those guys, we already have a 2nd Canadian in at defence most of the time. This is not that difficult to manage. There are several ways to do it.

Quote from: Jesse on Today at 06:35:35 PMBetween all of those guys, we already have a 2nd Canadian in at defence most of the time. This is not that difficult to manage. There are several ways to do it.

Yeah, that worked so well when we gave up 377 yards rushing against a QB making his 1st CFL start. The fact we do rotate in all those players doesn't mean it's a good thing. It means it's a forced choice because of the ratio.

I think there is an over evaluation in the potential to add Lewis. Let's see if the team decides to do it and how it works out.

Quote from: Blue In BC on Today at 06:39:56 PMYeah, that worked so well when we gave up 377 yards rushing against a QB making his 1st CFL start. The fact we do rotate in all those players doesn't mean it's a good thing. It means it's a forced choice because of the ratio.

I think there is an over evaluation in the potential to add Lewis. Let's see if the team decides to do it and how it works out.

Kinda my point. Why are you fighting so hard to keep the underperforming members of that defence in their starting roles? Especially since the inability of the offence to stay on the field led to those late rushing/scoring plays surrendered by the defence?

Pass

I'd rather play Singer

Quote from: Jesse on Today at 06:49:09 PMKinda my point. Why are you fighting so hard to keep the underperforming members of that defence in their starting roles? Especially since the inability of the offence to stay on the field led to those late rushing/scoring plays surrendered by the defence?

The point is that they are Canadians and the ratio makes that a necessity. It's necessary to have different defensive looks and to rotate players to keep them fresh. Those are the players we have. It's not because they are good or effective.

There is no suggestion that another import receiver, Lewis or otherwise wouldn't help the offence which would indirectly help the defence.

I've tried to point out the cost of the trade off. Do we want to see more reps for some of those Canadians in order to add Lewis? That's the question in a nutshell.

Quote from: Blue In BC on Today at 08:21:33 PMThe point is that they are Canadians and the ratio makes that a necessity. It's necessary to have different defensive looks and to rotate players to keep them fresh. Those are the players we have. It's not because they are good or effective.

There is no suggestion that another import receiver, Lewis or otherwise wouldn't help the offence which would indirectly help the defence.

I've tried to point out the cost of the trade off. Do we want to see more reps for some of those Canadians in order to add Lewis? That's the question in a nutshell.

I want to start Smith at LB anyways. So I'm all for making that change and adding another import at receiver.

Quote from: Blue In BC on Today at 08:21:33 PMThe point is that they are Canadians and the ratio makes that a necessity. It's necessary to have different defensive looks and to rotate players to keep them fresh. Those are the players we have. It's not because they are good or effective.

There is no suggestion that another import receiver, Lewis or otherwise wouldn't help the offence which would indirectly help the defence.

I've tried to point out the cost of the trade off. Do we want to see more reps for some of those Canadians in order to add Lewis? That's the question in a nutshell.

Do more reps for Smith, Shay, Schmekel hurt us more than the added reps we've been giving all year to Cobb, Corcoran and Daniels?

Quote from: RebusRankin on Today at 09:39:43 PMDo more reps for Smith, Shay, Schmekel hurt us more than the added reps we've been giving all year to Cobb, Corcoran and Daniels?

Shay, not sure, Schmekel yes (honestly cannot understand why he's still here) and Smith absolutely not, he's a baller. On the other end, Cobb and Corcoran are so limiting. Daniel's I like, wouldn't worry about him. His role is unique

Quote from: Jesse on Today at 08:40:57 PMI want to start Smith at LB anyways. So I'm all for making that change and adding another import at receiver.

I'd go along with that change at LB.  Adding Lewis as that extra import is a separate question and I'm not convinced I'd choose him but he's a CFL veteran so I suppose it's an easier argument to make.

Quote from: kkc60 on Today at 09:56:29 PMShay, not sure, Schmekel yes (honestly cannot understand why he's still here) and Smith absolutely not, he's a baller. On the other end, Cobb and Corcoran are so limiting. Daniel's I like, wouldn't worry about him. His role is unique

Schmekle is here because Thomas retired and Lawson is injured. We chose to not draft another interior DL for the past several years. Gatkouth might be the 1st DL that we drafted that has some upside.