Blue Bombers Forum
September 20, 2019, 03:09:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Blue Bombers Sign 5th Overall Selection Jonathan Kongbo  (Read 906 times)
ModAdmin
Administrator
*****
Posts: 10224


Reaves,Cameron,Riley,Walby - Blue Bomber Legends


« on: May 17, 2019, 01:26:44 PM »

Blue Bombers Sign 5th Overall Selection Jonathan Kongbo

WINNIPEG, MB., May 17, 2019 - The Winnipeg Blue Bombers today announce the club has signed their 5th overall selection from last month's CFL Draft, Tennessee defensive end Jonathan Kongbo.

Kongbo (6-5, 255, Tennessee, March 19, 1996 in Surrey, BC) played 30 games, starting 17, over three seasons with the Volunteers as a linebacker and defensive lineman. He totalled 51 tackles, 5.5 tackles for loss, 3.5 sacks, two interceptions (including a 50-yarder returned for a touchdown), and two knockdowns. He won the 2018 John Stucky award as Tennessee's best performer in the weight room.
Logged

"You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one." - John Wooden
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2019, 01:32:25 PM »

Excellent. I assume he starts the season on the 6 game IR until he's ready.
Logged

No more excuses.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21474



« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2019, 01:36:39 PM »

Great news. Is it a two-year deal?
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2019, 01:40:02 PM »

Great news. Is it a two-year deal?


Not sure about that but in 2020 the NFL option exists whether it's a 2 or 3 year deal. Whether that applies only to new contacts as of 2020 or carries over from existing contracts I'm less sure.

Overall this might create more roster churn each off season.
Logged

No more excuses.
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2303


« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2019, 02:12:57 PM »

BUT more talent will be willing to come up now knowing that if they have a good year, can try he NFL and if it doesn't pan out still have their deal here...i think its a win win and we will see better quality players...even if in some cases it's only for a yr or two
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2019, 02:24:48 PM »

BUT more talent will be willing to come up now knowing that if they have a good year, can try he NFL and if it doesn't pan out still have their deal here...i think its a win win and we will see better quality players...even if in some cases it's only for a yr or two

Perhaps. Regardless I think increased constant churn on rosters makes it more difficult for fans to associate with their teams as in the past.

Obviously there are still going to be long term players on any given team. I have said in the past that I'm ok with 46 new players in a season if the result is entertaining and winning.

Of course that was an exaggeration but also had some portion of truth conceptually.
Logged

No more excuses.
VictorRomano
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 274



« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2019, 03:39:39 PM »

Perhaps. Regardless I think increased constant churn on rosters makes it more difficult for fans to associate with their teams as in the past.

The new CBA has a part in it to protect veteran players from constantly moviing around:

"According to two sources, the proposed three-year deal includes a new ratio for three American starters who've been with a team for three seasons or have four years of combined CFL experience. The clause would prevent clubs from being able to replace the three with younger, less expensive players."

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/cfl/cfl-players-union-labour-deal-1.5136499
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2019, 04:29:57 PM »

The new CBA has a part in it to protect veteran players from constantly moviing around:

"According to two sources, the proposed three-year deal includes a new ratio for three American starters who've been with a team for three seasons or have four years of combined CFL experience. The clause would prevent clubs from being able to replace the three with younger, less expensive players."

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/cfl/cfl-players-union-labour-deal-1.5136499

What team doesn't have at least 3 import veterans that have been with the team or in the CFL for that long? Adams, S. Bryant, Hardrick, Matthews, Medlock, Foketi, Bighill, Jefferson, Nevis to name a few on the Bombers.

I don't see this as having any impact in the grand scheme of things.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7597



« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2019, 05:43:02 PM »

What team doesn't have at least 3 import veterans that have been with the team or in the CFL for that long? Adams, S. Bryant, Hardrick, Matthews, Medlock, Foketi, Bighill, Jefferson, Nevis to name a few on the Bombers.

I don't see this as having any impact in the grand scheme of things.
I agree that most if not all teams have those types of players. IMO it's more about keeping backup/DI vets employed. For example Fenner could backup both our SAM and our Safety (Assuming that's a NI spot), which makes him more valuable than a rookie backup.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
Fire101
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2019, 05:46:17 PM »

I agree that most if not all teams have those types of players. IMO it's more about keeping backup/DI vets employed. For example Fenner could backup both our SAM and our Safety (Assuming that's a NI spot), which makes him more valuable than a rookie backup.

True
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2019, 05:47:55 PM »

I agree that most if not all teams have those types of players. IMO it's more about keeping backup/DI vets employed. For example Fenner could backup both our SAM and our Safety (Assuming that's a NI spot), which makes him more valuable than a rookie backup.

It still will come down to SMS costs. I'm not against it but it's counter productive to the ratio which I've never supported.

So why create a loophole to circumvent the ratio instead of just changing the ratio for example?
Logged

No more excuses.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3327


« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2019, 05:40:03 AM »

What team doesn't have at least 3 import veterans that have been with the team or in the CFL for that long? Adams, S. Bryant, Hardrick, Matthews, Medlock, Foketi, Bighill, Jefferson, Nevis to name a few on the Bombers.

I don't see this as having any impact in the grand scheme of things.

I said in the other thread that it smells like an anti-CGY rule because CGY loves to churn over the expensive vets (usually the ones that aren't top-in-league) and bring in the next rookie superstars.

An interesting study would be to repeat your exercise in counting them for all 9 teams.  How do the various teams stack up?

But remember, the 3 have to be starters, not just AR or GDR.

Now, if you find that all teams are way over the 3 limit like we are, then perhaps the AVR and 3-starter rule is just a smokescreen to get the 2nd (destructive) part of the rule, the AVR-for-NAT-substitution, snuck in through the back door.  After all, why specify a new AVR which every team already complies with and more?  That's like CFLPA saying "I demand... no change!".
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7597



« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2019, 01:24:29 PM »

It still will come down to SMS costs. I'm not against it but it's counter productive to the ratio which I've never supported.

So why create a loophole to circumvent the ratio instead of just changing the ratio for example?
The whole thing seems rushed and not well thought out. I suspect that the CFL thought they would change the ratio in this CBA and that the PA would go alone with it. There were stories saying that everyone was on board with a ratio change. Instead, we get more special groups which IMO will lead to some roster shenanigans.
I said in the other thread that it smells like an anti-CGY rule because CGY loves to churn over the expensive vets (usually the ones that aren't top-in-league) and bring in the next rookie superstars.

An interesting study would be to repeat your exercise in counting them for all 9 teams.  How do the various teams stack up?

But remember, the 3 have to be starters, not just AR or GDR.

Now, if you find that all teams are way over the 3 limit like we are, then perhaps the AVR and 3-starter rule is just a smokescreen to get the 2nd (destructive) part of the rule, the AVR-for-NAT-substitution, snuck in through the back door.  After all, why specify a new AVR which every team already complies with and more?  That's like CFLPA saying "I demand... no change!".

I don't think the bolded statement is true. The 3 are most likely DI's because they are being allowed to take a NI starters spot. If they were starters to begin with, then it wouldn't make any sense.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23465


« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2019, 01:28:07 PM »

The whole thing seems rushed and not well thought out. I suspect that the CFL thought they would change the ratio in this CBA and that the PA would go alone with it. There were stories saying that everyone was on board with a ratio change. Instead, we get more special groups which IMO will lead to some roster shenanigans. I don't think the bolded statement is true. The 3 are most likely DI's because they are being allowed to take a NI starters spot. If they were starters to begin with, then it wouldn't make any sense.

We don't often see DI's as DI's for multiple seasons. Eventually they become starters or get replaced. There are exceptions like Medlock. OTOH in the purest sense he is a starter.

The intent of this change is puzzling.
Logged

No more excuses.
Pages: [1]
  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!