Blue Bombers Forum
December 15, 2018, 04:26:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Wild Signs Extension for 2018  (Read 6388 times)
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3291


« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2018, 03:45:43 PM »

JSK was our 2nd leading tackler and he wasn't on the roster at the beginning of the season. When Wild was healthy we had Kyle Knox on the roster IIRC and then added JSK when Wild went onto the IR.

Anybody know how many games JSK actually was starting at WIL?



Based on his stats, it appears he started 8 regular season and one playoff game.  He didn't dress for a game until week 4, and then it appears the Banjo Bowl was his first start. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1549


« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2018, 03:46:54 PM »

I just hope that if JSK is going to be penciled in at MLB that they also bring in another guy for that spot. Don't forget we still have MOS and Hall as the coaches and they had a love for Hurl.

You would think yes there will be competition for that spot if he is one of the guys they want to try there...I also think we may see a lot of 3-4 type fronts this year as well.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2018, 03:48:01 PM »

Pretty sure he started 9 games

Well that's a pretty impressive set of stats he posted for half a season. Do you think he will start TC penciled in at MLB or WIL?

IMO I still see Wild as more of a DI and role player in 2018. I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather see 1 change at LB than 2 but perhaps the Bombers plan on Wild starting at WIL?

Any thoughts on where Santos Knox is best suited.
Logged

No more excuses.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2018, 03:49:47 PM »

Well that's a pretty impressive set of stats he posted for half a season. Do you think he will start TC penciled in at MLB or WIL?

IMO I still see Wild as more of a DI and role player in 2018. I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather see 1 change at LB than 2 but perhaps the Bombers plan on Wild starting at WIL?

Any thoughts on where Santos Knox is best suited.
In another thread on this subject I suggested I'd like to see Santos Knox get a look at MLB and you were adamant he was better suited at WIL. 
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2018, 03:56:42 PM »

In another thread on this subject I suggested I'd like to see Santos Knox get a look at MLB and you were adamant he was better suited at WIL. 

That's not what I said. I said we know he plays well at WIL but we don't know if he would be better suited to MLB. So why move him and create what might be a void at WIL. As the saying goes if it isn't broken ( WIL ) than why change it?

I've suggested that Wild may no longer be the starter ( just my opinion ) but see him in a role as a DI. So that would possibly suggest a " rookie " at WIL and and 2nd year MLB that is unproven in the role.

I might also point out in previous seasons we moved WILD and Bass from WIL to MLB with less than successful results. Not every good WIL makes a good MLB.

This is not the same as giving him an opportunity at MLB but then he loses reps at WIL.

If the Bombers have decided that Wild is going to start at WIL than obviously he either has to win the role at MLB or he becomes the DI.

Also thinking Kyle Knox is likely not re-signed.
Logged

No more excuses.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2018, 03:59:57 PM »

That's not what I said. I said we know he plays well at WIL but we don't know if he would be better suited to MLB. So why move him and create what might be a void at WIL. As the saying goes if it isn't broken ( WIL ) than why change it?
The thing is that it is broke. Our D stunk last year and we are in desperate need for a legit MLB.  I think my earlier suggestion of Santos Knox at MLB just might be the answer.  There is a need to think outside the box.  You sure were quick to dismiss that idea in the other thread, when all I was suggesting was to give the guy a look at MLB.     
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3291


« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2018, 04:11:51 PM »

That's not what I said. I said we know he plays well at WIL but we don't know if he would be better suited to MLB. So why move him and create what might be a void at WIL. As the saying goes if it isn't broken ( WIL ) than why change it?

I've suggested that Wild may no longer be the starter ( just my opinion ) but see him in a role as a DI. So that would possibly suggest a " rookie " at WIL and and 2nd year MLB that is unproven in the role.

I might also point out in previous seasons we moved WILD and Bass from WIL to MLB with less than successful results. Not every good WIL makes a good MLB.

This is not the same as giving him an opportunity at MLB but then he loses reps at WIL.

If the Bombers have decided that Wild is going to start at WIL than obviously he either has to win the role at MLB or he becomes the DI.

Also thinking Kyle Knox is likely not re-signed.


Knox initially got the nod as the DI linebacker, with a promotion to WIL when Wild went down.  At the same time Santos-Knox came on as the DI.  Knox then missed a couple of games, and Santos got the promotion, and never gave the job back.   But Knox's numbers weren't terrible when he was starting. 

We know that the Bombers have tried Wild in the MLB spot before, and it wouldn't surprise me to see him there again.  I imagine Knox will get a look too, and I would be shocked if they don't have  new LB prospect or two in camp.  I am skeptical that they will make any big free agent splash at the position though. I can see all three (Santos, Wild and Knox) rotating through the two positions. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26985



« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2018, 04:15:20 PM »

The idea of converting guys suited to WIL to MACK is kinda dumb, really.  Get a Mack.  Pushing Bighill out to MACK because you had Solly at MACK, that's a good idea, keeping two elite players on the field.  But moving a good WIL LB to MACK, rather than getting a good MACK, or even a great one, well, that dog just don't hunt.

We have a lot of good WIL LB's on the team, and some tweeners SAM/WIL or WIL/MACK, but no real MACK other than Hurl... and we know everyone's feeling about whether Hurl is a good MACK...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2018, 04:27:16 PM »

The idea of converting guys suited to WIL to MACK is kinda dumb, really.  Get a Mack.  Pushing Bighill out to MACK because you had Solly at MACK, that's a good idea, keeping two elite players on the field.  But moving a good WIL LB to MACK, rather than getting a good MACK, or even a great one, well, that dog just don't hunt.

We have a lot of good WIL LB's on the team, and some tweeners SAM/WIL or WIL/MACK, but no real MACK other than Hurl... and we know everyone's feeling about whether Hurl is a good MACK...
Santos Knox is very versatile...he played multiple positions throughout his college career.  I think it's dangerous, and quite frankly, not very smart, to pigeon him as a WIL only. 
Logged
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1549


« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2018, 04:28:49 PM »

define suited for?...curious

Are you referring to physical stature?...or mental capacity/experience/measurables?

Santos-Knox is actually bigger than Eliiminiam in B.C and basically a mirror image of Singleton in CGY....Comparable measurable s to both as well...so that would say is "suited" for the position...no?...also wayyy bigger than Sherrit who played the position just fine too

As a person who played the spot myself I see Santos-Knox very suited for it from a physical stand-point, as well as what he showed last year, and at UMASS.
He has adapted the American vs Canadian filed size and benchmarks seemlessly to be able to take correct pursuit and attack angles and has the athletic ability to go sideline to sideline to make and follow a play, as well as drop in coverage...
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26985



« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2018, 04:31:25 PM »

define suited for?...curious

Are you referring to physical stature?...or mental capacity/experience/measurables?

Santos-Knox is actually bigger than Eliiminiam in B.C and basically a mirror image of Singleton in CGY....Comparable measurable s to both as well...so that would say is "suited" for the position...no?...also wayyy bigger than Sherrit who played the position just fine too

As a person who played the spot myself I see Santos-Knox very suited for it from a physical stand-point, as well as what he showed last year, and at UMASS.
He has adapted the American vs Canadian filed size and benchmarks seemlessly to be able to take correct pursuit and attack angles and has the athletic ability to go sideline to sideline to make and follow a play, as well as drop in coverage...


Suited for = has talent/size to play the position.  You don't want a guy who can't cover as a WIL, or a guy who can't runstop as a MACK.  Size is a factor in those skills, sure, but as you point out, exceptional players make up for size with skill.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2018, 05:19:42 PM »

define suited for?...curious

Are you referring to physical stature?...or mental capacity/experience/measurables?

Santos-Knox is actually bigger than Eliiminiam in B.C and basically a mirror image of Singleton in CGY....Comparable measurable s to both as well...so that would say is "suited" for the position...no?...also wayyy bigger than Sherrit who played the position just fine too

As a person who played the spot myself I see Santos-Knox very suited for it from a physical stand-point, as well as what he showed last year, and at UMASS.
He has adapted the American vs Canadian filed size and benchmarks seemlessly to be able to take correct pursuit and attack angles and has the athletic ability to go sideline to sideline to make and follow a play, as well as drop in coverage...


Not sure who you're asking. If it was me I'm not referring to his size one way or another. He seems to have many qualities a MLB should have. Not every great MLB could switch to WIL either IMO.

Suited for could mean just about anything. Field of vision, durability, run stopping, ability to drop more into coverage at MLB than at WIL.

I'd say the speed of the game and shorter distances across the middle could be a factor.

As I mentioned Bass was a very good WIL and failed at MLB and O'Shea said he was not best suited in that role.

The point made is that if he's really good at WIL then why move him and have him as the back up possibly at MLB while finding a new MLB.

It really comes down to whether he is ahead or behind Wild at WIL going into TC.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 05:32:59 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2018, 05:25:04 PM »

The thing is that it is broke. Our D stunk last year and we are in desperate need for a legit MLB.  I think my earlier suggestion of Santos Knox at MLB just might be the answer.  There is a need to think outside the box.  You sure were quick to dismiss that idea in the other thread, when all I was suggesting was to give the guy a look at MLB.     

Just like you dismissed my thought that WIL isn't broken. Considering he's only started about 9 games at WIL I wouldn't want to shift to much of his attention at learning that position even better.

One change at LB instead of 2. Of course this all depends on Wild's role and whether he's going into TC ahead or behind Santos Knox. My opinion is that I prefer Santos Knox as the WIL and Wild as a DI as a better option.
Logged

No more excuses.
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2018, 05:29:08 PM »

Just like you dismissed my thought that WIL isn't broken. Considering he's only started about 9 games at WIL I wouldn't want to shift to much of his attention at learning that position even better.

One change at LB instead of 2. Of course this all depends on Wild's role and whether he's going into TC ahead or behind Santos Knox. My opinion is that I prefer Santos Knox as the WIL and Wild as a DI as a better option.
I never dismissed that.  I agree that WIL isn't broken.  But I'm looking at the bigger picture here.  We have tremendous depth at WIL, and nothing at MLB.  If one of the WIL LB's can also play MLB, then why not take a look to see if they guy is a fit?  Booch very nicely articulated in his analysis that it appears Santos Knox would be a good fit at MLB.  But there's only one way to find out for sure...
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2018, 05:41:30 PM »

I never dismissed that.  I agree that WIL isn't broken.  But I'm looking at the bigger picture here.  We have tremendous depth at WIL, and nothing at MLB.  If one of the WIL LB's can also play MLB, then why not take a look to see if they guy is a fit?  Booch very nicely articulated in his analysis that it appears Santos Knox would be a good fit at MLB.  But there's only one way to find out for sure...

And I explained my reasons for not switching him. Every TC we sign rookies that seems suited to play in the CFL because of all the things Booch has mentioned. We did last year and ended up starting Hurl.

Go figure. Regardless of what we say or think we'll see what the teams does. If we go out and sign a veteran like Woods or Sherritt that will suggest what we're doing. If we don't then we'll see who we bring in as rookies and what early days of TC see getting 1st string reps.

Last year Hurl got 1st string reps starting with day 1. I said that was not a good sign that we had any real thought of competition at MLB. Few believed me at the time.

I still fear we re-sign Hurl and that happens again in TC. O'Shea and Hall seem to be in love with Hurl.

If we lose Westerman, ratio may dictate what happened last year.

Let see what happens in what order as free agency happens etc. You don't think we're all looking at the bigger picture?

NOTE: Last off season many were saying similar things about Kyle Knox. Will we be surprised if we don't even re-sign him? We might but I'd say he's fallen down the depth chart.
Logged

No more excuses.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!