Blue Bombers add to roster

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

TOR (in '22-'24), MTL & SSK built hodgepodge piecemeal OLs including grabbing pieces in FA.  All 3 are/were league best.

I don't believe in the "learning curve" thing anymore, assuming you get top-10 talent in FA, plus maybe a couple of talented vets as well as lucky with a DP or ELC.  If 4 of your 5 are top-10 and maybe a straggler in top-20, they'll have the talent to pick up the scheme and gel early.

Perfect continuity will buy you some bonus points, especially early, but if the talent isn't there you'll never be a top line.  We've proven this to be true.

Time for a different approach.

There is zero cost to throwing away underperforming ELCs that didn't work out.  Maybe one stays as PR guy, if none of the newer ELCs look better.

If we keep the line as-is we'll languish just as we did in '25.  And one puzzle piece isn't enough.  Blow it all up.  Only Stan & Neuf are safe.  I'm with Brady here.

Read on Riderfans how it's starting to make more sense to play American O-lineman as many of the better experienced Natls. are often making $200k+ now, with the top salary going to Ryan Hunter at $275k, which is higher than every receiver not named Kenny Lawler. The difficulty is stocking good Natl talent. in other positions to cover the ratio differential.

[Tecno]

Read on Riderfans how it's starting to make more sense to play American O-lineman as many of the better experienced Natls. are often making $200k+ now, with the top salary going to Ryan Hunter at $275k, which is higher than every receiver not named Kenny Lawler. The difficulty is stocking good Natl talent. in other positions to cover the ratio differential.

Yup, I've come to the same conclusion.  SSK started 4 NAT RECs in the GC, and only one would be considered top-10: Emilus.  That let them have 4 IMP OL.  Which used to be considered quite insane in the CFL.

If you want to be good with the traditional 3 NAT OL you need to basically have 1 top-5 guy (think Desjar), 1 top-10 guy, and another soon-to-be-top-10 ELC NAT guy.  As well as league top-10 OTs (especially blind side OT).

Unless you get lucky with an instant top-10 DP every season, it's impossible and unaffordable.  You can get top IMP OGs for peanuts compared to top NAT OGs.  Like nearly half price.  And I bet a great IMP C would be way cheaper than a NAT C.

And the middling NAT RECs you can stock up on are good enough for the timing routes & short game, especially if they are big and can hold (like Ajou).

This all gives you tons of money to spend on D.  See: SSK.  It's actually a brilliant plan to avoid the worst pitfalls of the CFL roster: overpaid and rare top NAT OL.  And it would be even better here in WPG because we have good NATs at SAM & DT (Lawson), as well as the NAT RB & top star Demski.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Canadian offensive lineman are not normally a good idea. I mean a few can play but the majority are long term projects who grade out pretty average even if the development goes exceeding well. Some of the USports lineman that get looks in the CFL wouldn't even start on top high school US teams in any of the big programs. It's bad for football and it's bad for entertainment and does nothing to help with marketing. But you got to play them (and pay them a premium too) because the rules say you do. An example of what is broken to be sure.

[Blue In BC]

Canadian offensive lineman are not normally a good idea. I mean a few can play but the majority are long term projects who grade out pretty average even if the development goes exceeding well. Some of the USports lineman that get looks in the CFL wouldn't even start on top high school US teams in any of the big programs. It's bad for football and it's bad for entertainment and does nothing to help with marketing. But you got to play them (and pay them a premium too) because the rules say you do. An example of what is broken to be sure.

All true. It's a factor of the ratio when many teams can't fill other spots on the roster with top Canadians. Bombers have had the luxury of starting some good Canadians more than the requirement in the ratio.

To that end, if they choose to use another import OL on an ELC it would be beneficial.

[dd]

It all comes down to get good NAT talent, regardless of their position, so they don't hurt you on the field. A weak DT results in less pressure on the Qb, but doesn't give up the big score because your NAT DB isn't capable of covering. The Riders have a roster full of very good NAT talent-Logan Ferland, A.J.Allen, Sam Emilus, KSB--all legit stars in their own right, let alone Canadian. On our roster, Demski and Brady are legit stars, Kramdi is serviceable, the rest are questionable if they should even be starting.

[VictorRomano]

It all comes down to get good NAT talent, regardless of their position, so they don't hurt you on the field. A weak DT results in less pressure on the Qb, but doesn't give up the big score because your NAT DB isn't capable of covering. The Riders have a roster full of very good NAT talent-Logan Ferland, A.J.Allen, Sam Emilus, KSB--all legit stars in their own right, let alone Canadian. On our roster, Demski and Brady are legit stars, Kramdi is serviceable, the rest are questionable if they should even be starting.

Much truth in this.  Canadian depth in case you lose a starter is also important. 

That said, I'd be OK with letting Brady walk if his ask is too high, and using the money saved to get some top-notch OL and using Peterson (and his inexpensive contract relative to BO) to run the ball in 2026.  The  $100k+ saved could help buy some top notch OL talent; alternatively, sign and trade Brady for a top-3 OL already under contract.  And, much like Augustine, who was totally serviceable for us but not an All-Star,  I think being stuck behind Brady is going to limit Peterson's development.  Kid needs game time if he's going to be all he can be.  Being able to develop behind an 2026 OL that maybe includes the addition of one or more of Couture, Hardrick, Dobson, or Desjarlais, or even Zach Williams or Mark Korte would certainly help him, and Zach, too.

[Tecno]

Weird, but OL quality didn't seem to be as much of an issue 10 years ago, on any team.  What's going on here?  Is the quality of NAT OL DPs going down?  Or has the capability of IMP DL's gone up?  It certainly appears as if the size/weight of DTs has been rising.

Something is throwing off the balance, and except for the top 2-3 teams (that have the top-3 OL), it's causing major O suckage.  Like it did for us.

Maybe it is time for more teams to shift the ratio away from OL into stranger positions, especially on D.  It also makes the top-of-the-top NATs like Rourke & Brady way more valuable -- not because they are the best in their position, but because they are "great enough" with the bonus passport.

If we're still high on Wallace (as KW hinted at) then maybe we should really look hard at IMP C -- virtually unheard of in the CFL.  Surely there are a ton who couldn't make the NFL and have zero job options?  Pick the best one.  Problem solved.  And when Neuf's time comes, put a top IMP RG in there too.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Weird, but OL quality didn't seem to be as much of an issue 10 years ago, on any team.  What's going on here?  Is the quality of NAT OL DPs going down?  Or has the capability of IMP DL's gone up?  It certainly appears as if the size/weight of DTs has been rising.

Something is throwing off the balance, and except for the top 2-3 teams (that have the top-3 OL), it's causing major O suckage.  Like it did for us.

Maybe it is time for more teams to shift the ratio away from OL into stranger positions, especially on D.  It also makes the top-of-the-top NATs like Rourke & Brady way more valuable -- not because they are the best in their position, but because they are "great enough" with the bonus passport.

If we're still high on Wallace (as KW hinted at) then maybe we should really look hard at IMP C -- virtually unheard of in the CFL.  Surely there are a ton who couldn't make the NFL and have zero job options?  Pick the best one.  Problem solved.  And when Neuf's time comes, put a top IMP RG in there too.

Some of it is probably cyclical. There is no defined logic to the number of pro ready offensive lineman Canada produces in a stretch of years. Part of it is that NFL scouting in Canada is better and more thorough than ever. Part of it is that defensive lines are predominately Americans. We know that starting Americans need to be significantly better in just about every way to land on the game day roster (more competition, less roster spots, etc.) so the result is they often win. It's a combination of things.

The other part of it is also your memory. No, every team didn't have quality Canadian offensive lineman 10 years ago. There has always been pretty severe scarcity. That's why we end up with projects that professional football teams really shouldn't take on and hopes and prayers. (Joe Mack trying to convert Tyson Pencer at the pro level, for example). It's always been a stupid flawed system.

For the CFL to truly be more talented we need to find the best prospects no matter where they are from and develop them. Right now we can't do that. Does anyone in Winnipeg really care that Stanley Bryant is American?