Blue Bombers Forum
August 08, 2020, 05:27:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: End of an Era  (Read 5449 times)
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« on: January 08, 2020, 04:17:38 PM »

I just read the CFLPA memo to players on the CBA changes, as posted at 3downnation.

Based on what I read, I am serving notice that this will be my last year as a season ticket holder, and probably the last that I follow the league closely on-line throughout the year.  I have already committed to my seatmates for the current season, so I guess this year will be the long goodbye.

I know different people have different opinions, but the idea of creating Fake Canadians by designating 3 year American vets as Canadians for the starting ratio is reprehensible.  Not only does it remove Canadians from starting positions, but it does it in such a duplicitous way. Instead of just dropping the ratio requirement lower, we create ersatz Canadians.  It's snake oil, pure and simple. 

For me, seeing how GMs and coaches manage the ratio is the most entertaining part of the off-season discussion, and is what makes the draft and free agency strategy so important.  With this development, the importance of the CFL draft is negligible. 

Only time will tell if Ambrosie's vision is necessary for the economic survival of the league.  But if changing into something unrecognizable is the cost of survival, well, I just can say that I really want no part of it. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2020, 04:27:56 PM »

I think this is the section you mentioned. You may be reading too much into it. The imports involved are already starters. Saying S. Bryant can replace an injured Canadian OL doesn't carry much weight. The only way this happens in practice is if a DI is capable of being the replacement. We don't generally see DI's stay with a team or even in the CFL that long without becoming actual starters?

In Winnipeg Medlock obviously falls into the long term player but he's a specialist and has nobody to replace.

Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National Players by virtue of the Amended definition of National, i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation.

In the event of a game injury to any of the Club?s ten (10) National Starters, the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National above.

During each season, Section 8, sub-sections 1, 2 and 5 of the C.F.L. By-Laws (Appendix ?E? to the Collective Agreement) shall be amended and shall be deemed to be amended as follows:

1. For the 2020 and 2021 seasons, the Commissioner shall maintain in the League office a registry of Players under contract with each Member Club. Prior to the commencement of the regular season schedule each Member Club shall, in accordance with a timetable prescribed by the Management Council, establish its active Roster at:

a maximum of 45 Players, including 2 Players who shall be identified as quarterbacks and 43 other Players, of whom not more than 20 may be Americans, or

2. Prior to the commencement of the regular season schedule, each Member Club shall in accordance with the timetable prescribed by the Management Council, establish its reserve Roster of 1 Player.

5. A Member Club shall be permitted to dress for a regular season or playoff game or League Championship Game its active Roster as described in paragraph 1. The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt. A National quarterback will be considered one of a Club?s starting National Players as long as he remains on the field at the quarterback position. When the Member Club dresses its full quota of American Players four shall be designated Americans and designated as special team Players who may enter the game at another position only upon the understanding that another American Player is required to leave the game for that play.

When the Member Club dresses 19 American Players, three shall be designated Americans and designated as special team Players who may enter the game at another position only upon the understanding that another American Player is required to leave the game for that play.

When the Member Club dresses 18 American Players, two shall be a designated Americans and designated as a special team Players who may enter the game at another position only upon the understanding that another American Player is required to leave the game for that play.

The designated Americans shall only be allowed to participate on the special teams; provided however, a designated American may be directly substituted to replace another American Player provided the said American Player being replaced is on the same side (offensive or defensive) that the designated American will be playing on. The designated American may replace any other American Player during the game on either side of the ball on the understanding that the Player that he replaces may not re-enter that game.

Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National players by virtue of the Amended definition of National i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) Players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation. In the event of a game injury to any of the Clubs? ten (10) National Starters, the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 04:33:49 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2020, 04:37:31 PM »


   
Quote
Re: End of an Era


I think this is the section you mentioned. You may be reading too much into it. The imports involved are already starters. Saying S. Bryant can replace an injured Canadian OL doesn't carry much weight. The only way this happens in practice is if a DI is capable of being the replacement. We don't generally see DI's stay with a team or even in the CFL that long without becoming actual starters?



Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National Players by virtue of the Amended definition of National, i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation.

The above is not limited to injury replacement.  In practical terms, the Bombers can now declare Stanley Bryant as a Canadian for starting ratio purposes.  That means they can reacquire Travis Bond, and Patrick Neufeld is on the bench.   They can do the same thing with Hardrick, and Desjarlais is now on the bench.  They can declare Darvin Adams a Canadian, go out and sign Derel Walker, and Wolitarsky becomes a sideline decoration. 

This is unacceptable to me. 
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 04:44:09 PM by the paw » Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2020, 04:38:17 PM »

LOL. If I read this correctly we could now list Medlock as the # 2 QB. It would be suicide if we had a QB injury but I find it amusing.

We need to find the next Chuck Ealy or Don Jonas that could actually really play QB as well as be the primary kickers.
Logged

No more excuses.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2020, 04:50:01 PM »

We are sorry to see you go and no doubt you have lots of fond memories of the CFL.

Best of luck in your future beyond this year-long goodbye. All the best.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2020, 04:50:23 PM »

Nik Kowalski
@nik_kowalski #Bombers new Canadian players:

Adam Bighill
Justin Medlock
Kyrie Wilson
Mercy Maston
Brandon Alexander
Jermarcus Hardrick
Kenny Lawler
Jackson Jeffcoat

The following players would also qualify as Canadian next season if they are to re-sign with the #Bombers:

Darvin Adams
Stanley Bryant
Chandler Fenner
Willie Jefferson
Korey Jones
Charles Nelson
Drake Nevis
Craig Roh
Nick Taylor

17 new NI's if everyone signs.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
CrazyCanuck89
Newbie
*
Posts: 41


« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2020, 04:52:20 PM »

I just read the CFLPA memo to players on the CBA changes, as posted at 3downnation.

Based on what I read, I am serving notice that this will be my last year as a season ticket holder, and probably the last that I follow the league closely on-line throughout the year.  I have already committed to my seatmates for the current season, so I guess this year will be the long goodbye.

I know different people have different opinions, but the idea of creating Fake Canadians by designating 3 year American vets as Canadians for the starting ratio is reprehensible.  Not only does it remove Canadians from starting positions, but it does it in such a duplicitous way. Instead of just dropping the ratio requirement lower, we create ersatz Canadians.  It's snake oil, pure and simple. 

For me, seeing how GMs and coaches manage the ratio is the most entertaining part of the off-season discussion, and is what makes the draft and free agency strategy so important.  With this development, the importance of the CFL draft is negligible. 

Only time will tell if Ambrosie's vision is necessary for the economic survival of the league.  But if changing into something unrecognizable is the cost of survival, well, I just can say that I really want no part of it. 

It makes no sense.  Canadian talent has only gotten better.  Their are more Canadian players going to the NCAA, we are beating the yanks at the U18 and U19 juniors.  Even Mexico and Japan have beat them.  The US, even have some kids on their roster going to Division 1 school.

We have Canadian DEs like Boateng and Smith beating American tackles.  Canadian DBs like Woodson and Bouka who get a chance to play DHB, when usually the DI at DB would fill that in game.  A QB like O'Connor who has a bright future if given the chance.  We have had guys like Cornish, Harris and Messam all lead the league in rushing.
LBs like Ackie, Lokombo, Muamba, Shorthill, Briggs, Greenwood, who have all played well as starters, or guys who have filled in for injuries and excelled.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2020, 04:58:41 PM »

   
The above is not limited to injury replacement.  In practical terms, the Bombers can now declare Stanley Bryant as a Canadian for starting ratio purposes.  That means they can reacquire Travis Bond, and Patrick Neufeld is on the bench.   They can do the same thing with Hardrick, and Desjarlais is now on the bench.  They can declare Darvin Adams a Canadian, go out and sign Derel Walker, and Wolitarsky becomes a sideline decoration. 

This is unacceptable to me. 

....or Alexander plays in place of Hecht and we no longer have to worry about the ratio issue on D. even if Kongbo never returns.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2020, 05:02:03 PM »

Nik Kowalski
@nik_kowalski #Bombers new Canadian players:

Adam Bighill
Justin Medlock
Kyrie Wilson
Mercy Maston
Brandon Alexander
Jermarcus Hardrick
Kenny Lawler
Jackson Jeffcoat

The following players would also qualify as Canadian next season if they are to re-sign with the #Bombers:

Darvin Adams
Stanley Bryant
Chandler Fenner
Willie Jefferson
Korey Jones
Charles Nelson
Drake Nevis
Craig Roh
Nick Taylor

17 new NI's if everyone signs.

If not sure Lawler, Nelson or K. Jones qualify under the new rule. Regardless nearly every player is already a starter. The few that aren't would be DI's at best and who would they replace as injured starting Canadians.

4 players in the group of if we re-sign and probably not returning.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 05:07:44 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2020, 05:06:28 PM »

....or Alexander plays in place of Hecht and we no longer have to worry about the ratio issue on D. even if Kongbo never returns.

That's not what it says. It says during in game injury. Alexander will already be starting.

A slippery slope though. I suppose if we had a DB as a DI he could replace Alexander at DHB or CB and then Alexander could replace a Canadian at safety.

That's a lot of if's and just adds more confusion.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2020, 05:09:13 PM »

If not sure Lawler, Nelson or K. Jones qualify under the new rule. Regardless nearly every player is already a starter. The few that aren't would be DI's at best and who would they replace as injured starting Canadians.
Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National Players by virtue of the Amended definition of National, i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation.

3 of of the 17 players can be designated as National Starters.

Not sure what good it does because it also says:

In the event of a game injury to any of the Club?s ten (10) National Starters...


Sounds like the number of national starters goes up by 3 (Used to be 7). Those 3 spots are taken by vet imports. Kinda a wash.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2020, 05:16:06 PM »

Teams will be eligible to name as National Starters a maximum of three (3) Players per game who have become National Players by virtue of the Amended definition of National, i.e. Americans who have played with the same C.F.L. team for three (3) consecutive years or who have played four (4) years in the C.F.L. These three (3) players only apply to the starter ratio, and not to the roster allocation.

3 of of the 17 players can be designated as National Starters.

Not sure what good it does because it also says:

In the event of a game injury to any of the Club?s ten (10) National Starters...


Sounds like the number of national starters goes up by 3 (Used to be 7). Those 3 spots are taken by vet imports. Kinda a wash.

It's a little like designating the DI's. We do that before the game and they can be substitutes as set by rule.

The only way I see this changing anything is if one of those 3 players is already a DI and capable of replacing a Canadian starter. He'd also have to be better than the Canadian back ups we already have.

Something new to watch in 2020. More of a very, very small ripple than anything really having any impact. Unless this is step 1 before they take away the in game injury comment and make veteran imports as grandfathered Canadians.  IE: the Ron Lancaster rule.



Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2020, 05:16:37 PM »

Quote
?A? Grid ? 1st or 2nd round CFL Draft Choice

    Base Salary (max.)    Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)    50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)

1st Year    $65,000    $7,500    $7,500

2nd Year    $65,000    $7,500    $7,500

3rd Year    $65,000-$71,500 max.    $7,500    $7,500

?B? Grid ? 3rd or 4th round CFL Draft Choice

    Base Salary (max.)    Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)    50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)

1st Year    $65,000    $5,000    $7,500

2nd Year    $65,000    $5,000    $7,500

3rd Year    $65,000-$71,500 max.    $5,000    $7,500

?C? Grid ? 5th round or higher CFL Draft Choice plus undrafted

    Base Salary (max.)    Max. Sign or Housing (Optional)    50% + 1 based on offence and defence snaps (Optional)

1st Year    $65,000    $2,500    $7,500

2nd Year    $65,000    $2,500    $7,500

3rd Year    $65,000-$71,500 max.    $2,500    $7,500

Note: No other bonus payments (inside an addendum) are permitted (i.e. no per Sacks, All-star, or Outstanding Player, etc. payments)

All Global players will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1(option) first contract.

All American players will be required to sign a minimum 1 + 1(option) first contract.

Note: No restrictions on bonus payments to Global or American Players.


Max salaries for draft picks also in the memo. 65K base salary for a 1st or 2nd rounder seems pretty darn low.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
CrazyCanuck89
Newbie
*
Posts: 41


« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2020, 05:25:44 PM »

   
The above is not limited to injury replacement.  In practical terms, the Bombers can now declare Stanley Bryant as a Canadian for starting ratio purposes.  That means they can reacquire Travis Bond, and Patrick Neufeld is on the bench.   They can do the same thing with Hardrick, and Desjarlais is now on the bench.  They can declare Darvin Adams a Canadian, go out and sign Derel Walker, and Wolitarsky becomes a sideline decoration. 

This is unacceptable to me. 

Actually it's 10 staring nationals.  Seven must be actual Nationals and the other three can be an import, who have been with the team for three years or in the CFL for four.  So you would still have to start guys like Desjarlais and Neufeld at guard or replace a import position, with a national.  It's kind of similar to the old rule where if a Import gets their Canadian citizenship, then they could be classified as nationals.  Guys like Angelo Mosca, did this.

The replacing of a national in game with an import is going to be hard, because not many teams have veteran imports backing up.  An example would be you guys starting Jefferson and Jeffcoat at DE with Roh as a backup and he is not a DI, Thomas goes down at DT, you can then put Roh in Thomas's spot, but you couldn't do that with a rookie import as your backup.
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2020, 05:34:05 PM »

Quote
The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt
Looks like QB's won't be able to play special teams any more unless they are kicking or holding.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2020, 05:37:48 PM »

Actually it's 10 staring nationals.  Seven must be actual Nationals and the other three can be an import, who have been with the team for three years or in the CFL for four.  So you would still have to start guys like Desjarlais and Neufeld at guard or replace a import position, with a national.  It's kind of similar to the old rule where if a Import gets their Canadian citizenship, then they could be classified as nationals.  Guys like Angelo Mosca, did this.

The replacing of a national in game with an import is going to be hard, because not many teams have veteran imports backing up.  An example would be you guys starting Jefferson and Jeffcoat at DE with Roh as a backup and he is not a DI, Thomas goes down at DT, you can then put Roh in Thomas's spot, but you couldn't do that with a rookie import as your backup.

I think you're interpreting this incorrectly. You're point might have credibility about Roh as your example but marginally so.

Let's expand what's wrong with that idea.

1. Roh will be making more than an ELC and may not re-sign.
2. If he's not a DI he could only play as an in game replacement?
3. Can he be both a DI and a designated national? Don't think they are saying that.
4. Said player still falls within the ratio so how do you fit him on the roster?

Nothing to see here. Smoke and mirrors IMO.
Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2020, 05:42:31 PM »

Looks like QB's won't be able to play special teams any more unless they are kicking or holding.

Not sure about that but perhaps. A QB comes out on punts. Any player that can receive the snap in that situation is how the # 3 QB played on punt coverage teams but not K/O coverage.

I can't see teams using their # 2 QB on coverage teams. However a QB like Streveler could come in on perceived punt downs and still actually receives the snap on a fake etc.

How could they prevent that from happening even if he lined up as a FB with a punter on the field?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 05:55:16 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
ichabod_crane
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 443


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2020, 05:51:12 PM »

I seem to recall there was similar rules to "naturalize" American players after 5 years or so way back in the 1950's-60's and maybe even before that. Rosters and ratio rules were much different then though. Smaller rosters for certain & some players played both sides of the ball too.
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2020, 05:57:41 PM »

Not sure about that but perhaps. A QB comes out on punts. Any player that can receive the snap in that situation is how the # 3 QB played on punt coverage teams but not K/O coverage.

I can't see teams using their # 2 QB on coverage teams. However a QB like Streveler could come in on perceived punt downs and still actually receive the snap.

How could they prevent that from happening even if he lined up as a FB with a punter on the field?
It right in the new rule:

The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt.

The only way Streveler could come in is as the punter.

Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2020, 05:58:06 PM »

I seem to recall there was similar rules to "naturalize" American players after 5 years or so way back in the 1950's-60's and maybe even before that. Rosters and ratio rules were much different then though. Smaller rosters for certain & some players played both sides of the ball too.

Back then players stuck with one team longer. These days players change teams so often and less of them even stay in the CFL for 4 years or longer. We're seeing much more of a rotating door on rosters. Part of that is the SMS and needing to cut rising salaries by adding rookies as the real top demand excessive money ( M. Reilly example ).
Logged

No more excuses.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21919



« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2020, 06:00:43 PM »

What is exactly ending? You still need to start 7 Canadians do you not?
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2020, 06:01:36 PM »

It right in the new rule:

The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt.

The only way Streveler could come in is as the punter.



Nope. So he lines up as a QB on 3rd down and then rushes down field to make a tackle.

While Streveler wouldn't play that role. Bennett in Regina might be their # 2 QB and do exactly what he did before.

Nothing I've seen says a QB and a punter can't be on the field at the same time. Medlock is a DI and effectively replaces a receiver on punts.
Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2020, 06:03:14 PM »

What is exactly ending? You still need to start 7 Canadians do you not?

Yes as far as I can tell but some are reading this that we can use the grandfathered 3 imports to replace Canadians as starters all the time.

That's were the interpretations are at odds.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2020, 06:04:11 PM »

Nope. So he lines up as a QB on 3rd down and then rushes down field to make a tackle.

While Streveler wouldn't play that role. Bennett in Regina might be their # 2 QB and do exactly what he did before.

Nothing I've seen says a QB and a punter can't be on the field at the same time. Medlock is a DI and effectively replaces a receiver on punts.
He can't line up at QB while someone else lines up at punter.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2020, 06:26:20 PM »

He can't line up at QB while someone else lines up at punter.

Sure he can. You could start by him lining up as a QB and Medlock lining up as a FB or receiver. Then as the play develops players go into motion and move into other spots. We see that with direct snaps to a RB on trick fake punts. 

The only difference would be the QB lining up as a QB to start and then actually moving the punter into the direct snap position and punting.

It's somewhat moot as I said I doubt teams risk their # 2 QB to play on ST's. In the case of the Bombers it wouldn't have ever been Streveler on ST's.

I am curious to see if Bennett remains as the # 2 QB in Regina and whether he continues in his ST role.

In the meantime we'll agree to disagree and see what teams do.

Medlock is a DI. You could call him a receiver and he could still be the only kicker.
Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2020, 06:33:12 PM »

So, designate 3 Int vet's as nats and increase the starting Nats from 7 to 10?  What does that accomplish?  

It is getting more confusing...

You can roster more than 2 QB's... QB's receive a specific designation, the active roster is 45 players, (21 nats, 20 Ints, 2 global and 2 QBs), if you choose to roster a 3rb QB, does than mean you can run a 46 man AR?  If no, and you have to lose an Int (roster only 19) and one of the QB's is a nat/global, does that mean you can still roster 20 Ints?  

What necessitated this change?  It doesn't create continuity (3 years with a team, 4 in the league for this phony passport you can only use on 3 players).  It doesn't change the roster / starters, really... it does make vets a little more valuable, but there are well more than three that fit that bill on every team.  

Is it to make players feel more "Canadian"?  So they can do "Skip the Dishes" commercials with John Hamm?

I don't get it...

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2020, 06:39:07 PM »

Sure he can. You could start by him lining up as a QB and Medlock lining up as a FB or receiver. Then as the play develops players go into motion and move into other spots. We see that with direct snaps to a RB on trick fake punts. 

The only difference would be the QB lining up as a QB to start and then actually moving the punter into the direct snap position and punting.

It's somewhat moot as I said I doubt teams risk their # 2 QB to play on ST's. In the case of the Bombers it wouldn't have ever been Streveler on ST's.

I am curious to see if Bennett remains as the # 2 QB in Regina and whether he continues in his ST role.

In the meantime we'll agree to disagree and see what teams do.

Medlock is a DI. You could call him a receiver and he could still be the only kicker.

We will never see that. You're going to great lengths to try to get around the rule that QB can only play QB or punter.

In your scenario, as soon as the QB moves out of the QB spot to allow the ball to be snapped to a punter, he's no longer a QB and the penalty flag would fly for illegal substitution.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24802


« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2020, 06:40:39 PM »

I just read the CFLPA memo to players on the CBA changes, as posted at 3downnation.

Based on what I read, I am serving notice that this will be my last year as a season ticket holder, and probably the last that I follow the league closely on-line throughout the year.  I have already committed to my seatmates for the current season, so I guess this year will be the long goodbye.

I know different people have different opinions, but the idea of creating Fake Canadians by designating 3 year American vets as Canadians for the starting ratio is reprehensible.  Not only does it remove Canadians from starting positions, but it does it in such a duplicitous way. Instead of just dropping the ratio requirement lower, we create ersatz Canadians.  It's snake oil, pure and simple. 

For me, seeing how GMs and coaches manage the ratio is the most entertaining part of the off-season discussion, and is what makes the draft and free agency strategy so important.  With this development, the importance of the CFL draft is negligible. 

Only time will tell if Ambrosie's vision is necessary for the economic survival of the league.  But if changing into something unrecognizable is the cost of survival, well, I just can say that I really want no part of it. 

You got this all wrong. The NAT requirement remains virtually unchanged but makes vets a hot commodity now. Forces teams who do not want to pay experience to play NAT starters instead. As pointed out the NAT requirement is now 10 players.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2020, 06:45:18 PM »

We will never see that. You're going to great lengths to try to get around the rule that QB can only play QB or punter.

In your scenario, as soon as the QB moves out of the QB spot to allow the ball to be snapped to a punter, he's no longer a QB and the penalty flag would fly for illegal substitution.

That's not true any more than it was last year when QB's played on ST's. By your suggestion you're saying a direct snap would be illegal on a fake punt. It's not illegal to field a QB on 3rd down he doesn't have to sneak.

We saw Streveler move out to a receiver position and actually getting a reception at least once. From Adams IIRC.

Illegal substitution my butt. That's absurd.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 06:50:33 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2020, 06:47:36 PM »

You got this all wrong. The NAT requirement remains virtually unchanged but makes vets a hot commodity now. Forces teams who do not want to pay experience to play NAT starters instead. As pointed out the NAT requirement is now 10 players.

That can't be right.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2020, 06:49:31 PM »

That's not true any more than it was last year when QB's played on ST's. By your suggestion you're saying a direct snap would be illegal on a fake punt. It's not illegal to field a QB on 3rd down.
So, designate 3 Int vet's as nats and increase the starting Nats from 7 to 10?  What does that accomplish?  

It is getting more confusing...

You can roster more than 2 QB's... QB's receive a specific designation, the active roster is 45 players, (21 nats, 20 Ints, 2 global and 2 QBs), if you choose to roster a 3rb QB, does than mean you can run a 46 man AR?  If no, and you have to lose an Int (roster only 19) and one of the QB's is a nat/global, does that mean you can still roster 20 Ints?  

What necessitated this change?  It doesn't create continuity (3 years with a team, 4 in the league for this phony passport you can only use on 3 players).  It doesn't change the roster / starters, really... it does make vets a little more valuable, but there are well more than three that fit that bill on every team.  

Is it to make players feel more "Canadian"?  So they can do "Skip the Dishes" commercials with John Hamm?

I don't get it...

No, you can't have a 46 man roster.

Roster = 45
-20 Imports including 4 DI's
-1 Reserve
-2 Globals
-2 QB's
= 20 NI's

If you carry a 3rd QB one of two things happens. Either they have to be designated as a QB in which case you add 1 to the QB's and your NI's go down to 19 or they are designated as another position and their status as a NI or import comes into the equation. If they are an import, then they will take a DI spot. If they are a NI they will take an NI spot.

That's not true any more than it was last year when QB's played on ST's. By your suggestion you're saying a direct snap would be illegal on a fake punt. It's not illegal to field a QB on 3rd down.
No, I'm not saying a direct snap is illegal on a fake punt. I'm saying that the new rule specifically says the QB can only punt or hold on special teams.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
CrazyCanuck89
Newbie
*
Posts: 41


« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2020, 06:49:56 PM »

I think you're interpreting this incorrectly. You're point might have credibility about Roh as your example but marginally so.

Let's expand what's wrong with that idea.

1. Roh will be making more than an ELC and may not re-sign.
2. If he's not a DI he could only play as an in game replacement?
3. Can he be both a DI and a designated national? Don't think they are saying that.
4. Said player still falls within the ratio so how do you fit him on the roster?

Nothing to see here. Smoke and mirrors IMO.

This was an example if the rule was in place for 2019.  Roh was a veteran backup to Jefferson and Jeffcoat.  My point is only a veteran Import backup of 3+ with the team or 4+ years in the CFL, can replace one of seven true nationals in the game, where as a rookie import or a second year import can't.  I don't know if a veteran DI, could follow under this rule.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2020, 06:55:35 PM »

No, you can't have a 46 man roster.

Roster = 45
-20 Imports including 4 DI's
-1 Reserve
-2 Globals
-2 QB's
= 20 NI's

If you carry a 3rd QB one of two things happens. Either they have to be designated as a QB in which case you add 1 to the QB's and your NI's go down to 19 or they are designated as another position and their status as a NI or import comes into the equation. If they are an import, then they will take a DI spot. If they are a NI they will take an NI spot.
No, I'm not saying a direct snap is illegal on a fake punt. I'm saying that the new rule specifically says the QB can only punt or hold on special teams.

It doesn't say he can't be on the field on 3rd down when the punter is on the field. As I said how that would happen. If not calling the punter a punter by classification helps you that's up to you.

I also said we'll see with Bennett in particular if he makes their roster in 2020. Last year he might have been the only QB that played ST's.

From a strategic point of view to our opponent, making them defend both a punt and a QB sneak might be a slight advantage. That's the definition of trick play.  A few punters have made successful 3rd down passes as well.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 07:27:37 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2020, 06:58:05 PM »

lol @ the confusion
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
Nic16
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7440



« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2020, 07:09:40 PM »

You got this all wrong. The NAT requirement remains virtually unchanged but makes vets a hot commodity now. Forces teams who do not want to pay experience to play NAT starters instead. As pointed out the NAT requirement is now 10 players.

Until I read your post I was wondering what I was missing. My initial interpretation after reading the new NAT rules was very much in-line with your post. Then some confusion started kicking in after reading the discussions on this. However, I?m agreement with you so I?m back to my original thoughts on this now.
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21919



« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2020, 07:11:39 PM »

It looks like there's virtually no change. I think common sense probably rules here. If there was some sort of dramatic change to the ratio the league would have been all over framing and communicating that to fans (and probably making the case well beforehand). Instead it's slipped into a letter which very obviously can (and did) get leaked/reported on.

It's a shame, as I'm actually of the opinion the ratio rules should be overhauled but that's a different discussion.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2020, 07:33:01 PM »

It looks like there's virtually no change. I think common sense probably rules here. If there was some sort of dramatic change to the ratio the league would have been all over framing and communicating that to fans (and probably making the case well beforehand). Instead it's slipped into a letter which very obviously can (and did) get leaked/reported on.

It's a shame, as I'm actually of the opinion the ratio rules should be overhauled but that's a different discussion.

I'm not a fan of the ratio and have at times suggested some modifications. I've gone so far as suggesting more Canadians. When we had two non dressing players I suggested dressing them but making them Canadians to avoid the ratio aspect. Now we're down to 1 non dressing player and I'd be ok with dressing an extra Canadian.

Never could figure out paying a player a full salary and not putting him on the AR except for the ratio aspect. So like I said increase the number of Canadians by 1 and suit him up.

Just out of curiosity how would you overhaul the ratio rules?
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2020, 07:37:57 PM »

It doesn't say he can't be on the field on 3rd down when the punter is on the field. As I said how that would happen. If not calling the punter a punter by classification helps you that's up to you.

I also said we'll see with Bennett in particular if he makes their roster in 2020. Las year he might have been the only QB that played ST's.
A QB can't enter the game for any player other than a QB or a punter or to hold, so he could enter the game and pretend to be the punter. However,  "the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt", so if he doesn't punt or kick or hold, he can't be on the field. On a punt, if the ball is snapped to the real punter or a RB for that matter, he's on the field illegally. On a fake FG, he would still be the holder even if he doesn't accept the ball. On a punt, he'd move out of the QB/Punter spot.

If I were MOS, I'd try it to see how they call it in preseason.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2020, 07:42:12 PM »

You got this all wrong. The NAT requirement remains virtually unchanged but makes vets a hot commodity now. Forces teams who do not want to pay experience to play NAT starters instead. As pointed out the NAT requirement is now 10 players.

Following calmer deliberation, it appears that while I don't have ALL of it wrong, I was a little hasty in my doom and gloom scenario.  I missed the part where they bumped the NTL starter requirement to 10.  For the moment, it does seem a bit of a wash, and does make a long term /American veteran more valuable.  

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck.  
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2020, 07:46:08 PM »

A QB can't enter the game for any player other than a QB or a punter or to hold, so he could enter the game and pretend to be the punter. However,  "the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt", so if he doesn't punt or kick or hold, he can't be on the field. On a punt, if the ball is snapped to the real punter or a RB for that matter, he's on the field illegally. On a fake FG, he would still be the holder even if he doesn't accept the ball. On a punt, he'd move out of the QB/Punter spot.

If I were MOS, I'd try it to see how they call it in preseason.

I showed how and why he'd be on the field as the QB which you're choosing to ignore. Whether he's the # 1 or # 2 QB he'd still be the QB. It may be a sneak, pass or direct snap to somebody. It may be an effort to create an defensive offside.  Go figure

Here is one example for you.

3rd and short. QB lines up directly behind center and allows a direct snap a player behind him. Let's say A. Harris who runs wide for a 1st down. Let's say Harris punts the ball to catch the defenders in QB sneak mode.

By your comment you've said that would be illegal substitution  in your eyes.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 07:57:47 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2020, 07:48:51 PM »

Following calmer deliberation, it appears that while I don't have ALL of it wrong, I was a little hasty in my doom and gloom scenario.  I missed the part where they bumped the NTL starter requirement to 10.  For the moment, it does seem a bit of a wash, and does make a long term /American veteran more valuable.  

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck.  

We aren't going to see 10 Nationals starting no matter how they phrase it.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2020, 07:54:51 PM »

Just out of curiosity how would you overhaul the ratio rules?
I'd simplify it.

Remove the special QB class and up the number of imports by 2 to compensate

No reserve player

Get rid of the newly minted vet imports masquerading as non-imports

Go to 22 NI's, 22 imports (Including the 4 DI's), 1 global

By rule you'd have to start and maintain 7 NI's.

NI's can replace anyone

Globals and Imports can replace anyone as long as the starting 7 NI's are maintained

If we get a new team in the league go to 20 NI's, 24 imports, 1 Global

When globals start to produce, increase the globals to 2, which increases the roster size by 1
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 08:04:02 PM by TBURGESS » Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2020, 08:04:22 PM »

I'd simplify it.
"[" . strtolower("list") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"Remove the special QB class and up the number of imports by 2 to compensate."[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"Move the 1 reserve to the general roster. If the team is paying him, they should be able to play him."[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"Get rid of the newly minted vet imports masquerading as non-imports."[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"Go to 22 NI's, 22 imports (Including the 4 DI's), 1 global."[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"By rule you'd have to start and maintain 7 NI's."[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"NI's can replace anyone"[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"Globals and Imports can replace anyone as long as the starting 7 NI's are maintained"[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"If we get a new team in the league go to 20 NI's, 24 imports, 1 Global"[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[" . strtolower("li") . "]"When globals start to produce, increase the globals to 2, which increases the roster size by 1"[/" . strtolower("li") . "]"
"[/" . strtolower("list") . "]"


The problem is still with the QB's part of that. What if a team wanted to have a Canadian QB as one of their QB's. Then you've added another import as a DI potentially.

This would have been more of an issue when there were 3 QB's. I believe teams would have gone with 2 import QB's and an extra DI.

Down to 2 QB's that is very much less likely.

Regarding the globals not every team will have globals that produce at the same time or effectiveness. So that's a tough line to determine.

Other than that I mostly agree with your suggestions.
Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2020, 08:08:37 PM »

The problem is still with the QB's part of that. What if a team wanted to have a Canadian QB as one of their QB's. Then you've added another import as a DI potentially.

This would have been more of an issue when there were 3 QB's. I believe teams would have gone with 2 import QB's and an extra DI.

Down to 2 QB's that is very much less likely.

Regarding the globals not every team will have globals that produce at the same time or effectiveness. So that's a tough line to determine.

Other than that I mostly agree with your suggestions.
If a team chose an NI QB, he'd be one of the NI's. If they chose an import, he'd be one of the DI's. No problem, just different.

I'm not expecting all teams to have globals who produce at the same rate. Last year, we had one who did and there were a couple of others around the league who played a bit. That's not enough production to warrant 9 more globals. Once there are 5 or more effective globals, then increasing their numbers would be warranted.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2020, 08:10:19 PM »

Following calmer deliberation, it appears that while I don't have ALL of it wrong, I was a little hasty in my doom and gloom scenario.  I missed the part where they bumped the NTL starter requirement to 10.  For the moment, it does seem a bit of a wash, and does make a long term /American veteran more valuable.  

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck.  

I agree, I was mad last year when the CFL proposed these ratio changes as it appears they plan to reduce the number of true Natl. starters on the field long-term.  I now prefer to wait for the season to start to see how these rule changes are implemented on field, instead of getting worked up speculating on the multitude of possible scenarios. 

Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2020, 08:12:44 PM »

I'm not expecting all teams to have globals who produce at the same rate. Last year, we had one who did and there were a couple of others around the league who played a bit. That's not enough production to warrant 9 more globals. Once there are 5 or more effective globals, then increasing their numbers would be warranted.


I really can't figure out the end-game but it must somehow lead to more $$$, or there's no reason to pursue it.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2020, 08:21:50 PM »

If a team chose an NI QB, he'd be one of the NI's. If they chose an import, he'd be one of the DI's. No problem, just different.

I'm not expecting all teams to have globals who produce at the same rate. Last year, we had one who did and there were a couple of others around the league who played a bit. That's not enough production to warrant 9 more globals. Once there are 5 or more effective globals, then increasing their numbers would be warranted.


That's been covered in other discussions. Doesn't change the " add 2 imports " to replace the QB designation.

If a team rostered Bridges as their # 2 QB then that change would allow an extra import. Effectively he becomes a DI.

Similarly in Toronto with O'Conner if he makes the roster as their # 2 QB. Of course they haven't yet made the change you suggest. It's where I see a problem potentially.

Regarding the 5 globals suggestion. Makes sense except who decides where to draw the line on what is effective and when the magic number of 5 is reached. There may be a way but it's not black and white either.

Ratio is complicated. lol

« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 08:27:11 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2020, 08:27:03 PM »

That's been covered in other discussions. Doesn't change the " add 2 imports " to replace the QB designation.

If a team rostered Bridges as their # 2 QB then that change would allow an extra import. Effectively as a DI.
I know that, but I don't see it as a problem. Some teams might make the choice to roster a NI QB just to get the extra import backup. Not having enough good NI QB's for every team to go that route doesn't make it wrong or a problem IMO.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21919



« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2020, 08:27:19 PM »

Following calmer deliberation, it appears that while I don't have ALL of it wrong, I was a little hasty in my doom and gloom scenario.  I missed the part where they bumped the NTL starter requirement to 10.  For the moment, it does seem a bit of a wash, and does make a long term /American veteran more valuable.  

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck.  

The way the league has defined it has always been somewhat arbitrary. For example, Wolitarsky is a National but was born and raised in the US. He has a Canadian mother, so he got his citizenship just prior to the 2017 draft. Had he waited until, say, this year to get his citizenship he would forever be classified as an American. Makes sense? Who knows. Anyone who spends 5 years in Canada prior to 18 qualifies as a national, regardless of actual citizenship. No idea why.

At some point we're all going to have to be okay with seeing the best players in the world outside of the NFL (regardless of where they're from) because I'm sure that's where 2.0 is heading. At least, I hope so.  
Logged
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4534



« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2020, 08:28:06 PM »

The  way that I understand this is that it applies to American players that have been on the same team for 3+ years. With the way players move around on 1 year contracts how many will qualify? Also, and I'm only using him as an example because he's the only one that I can think of right now, but how is this any different than Wolitarsky being a starting Canadian because his mother was born in Canada? To be clear I don't have a problem with this. Yes Canadians are getting better, but the NFL is snapping up the best ones. The CFL has to do what it can.
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2020, 08:31:49 PM »

I showed how and why he'd be on the field as the QB which you're choosing to ignore. Whether he's the # 1 or # 2 QB he'd still be the QB. It may be a sneak, pass or direct snap to somebody. It may be an effort to create an defensive offside.  Go figure

Here is one example for you.

3rd and short. QB lines up directly behind center and allows a direct snap a player behind him. Let's say A. Harris who runs wide for a 1st down. Let's say Harris punts the ball to catch the defenders in QB sneak mode.

By your comment you've said that would be illegal substitution  in your eyes.
It would only be an illegal sub if there was also a punter on the field. In your scenario QB, plays QB and there is no punter involved.

To clarify... Punter punts or throws the ball when a QB is on the field... Illegal substitution.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 08:34:25 PM by TBURGESS » Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2020, 08:34:38 PM »

I know that, but I don't see it as a problem. Some teams might make the choice to roster a NI QB just to get the extra import backup. Not having enough good NI QB's for every team to go that route doesn't make it wrong or a problem IMO.

I was still adding above.

I agree it wouldn't be wrong but it is somewhat contrary to adding more imports that would actually see the field.

Most of the time the # 2 QB doesn't see the field that often. Streveler was a bit of an exception to that.

While I doubt a team would risk adding a bad Canadian QB in order to get another import it leaves the door open. It's an odd situation which I commented on last year when teams had # QB's.

I suggested every team would probably roster a Canadian # 3 in order to get an extra import elsewhere. With only 2 QB's that's far less likely.

I was hopeful that O'Conner might develop into a decent QB even if only as a # 2 QB. Now I'm not sure he can even make a roster with the switch in the new designation of 2.

The entire league QB situation with free agency and seeing how teams approach who and how much both the starter and back up can be paid and afforded is something to watch.

Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2020, 08:39:39 PM »

It would only be an illegal sub if there was also a punter on the field. In your scenario QB, plays QB and there is no punter involved.

To clarify... Punter punts or throws the ball when a QB is on the field... Illegal substitution.

Anybody can punt. He doesn't have to be called a punter in order to do that.

Clearly I disagree with your interpretation. We'll see how this plays out.
Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2199



« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2020, 08:42:06 PM »

I have thought that this was a good idea for a long time. It rewards teams and players for loyalty. If you're constantly turning over your roster looking to find cheap Americans then you better have 10 Canadians ready to start. I like that players who have shown loyalty to the league and to particular teams (and vice versa) can have this added benefit. I don't see it as an erosion of Canadian players in the league. I think the "technical Canadians" like Ben Cahoon in the past and Drew Wolitarski now are more harmful to what it means to be a National player in the CFL.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2020, 08:42:37 PM »

I was still adding above.

I agree it wouldn't be wrong but it is somewhat contrary to adding more imports that would actually see the field.

Most of the time the # 2 QB doesn't see the field that often. Streveler was a bit of an exception to that.

While I doubt a team would risk adding a bad Canadian QB in order to get another import it leaves the door open. It's an odd situation which I commented on last year when teams had # QB's.

I suggested every team would probably roster a Canadian # 3 in order to get an extra import elsewhere. With only 2 QB's that's far less likely.

I was hopeful that O'Conner might develop into a decent QB even if only as a # 2 QB. Now I'm not sure he can even make a roster with the switch in the new designation of 2.

The entire league QB situation with free agency and seeing how teams approach who and how much both the starter and back up can be paid and afforded is something to watch.
If QB's weren't in a special category then an import backup would become one of the 4 DI's. That would allow an extra import to go in for anyone as long as the 7 NI's were maintained. If the QB2 was an NI, then teams would have an extra import and an extra DI.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4534



« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2020, 08:53:38 PM »

I have thought that this was a good idea for a long time. It rewards teams and players for loyalty. If you're constantly turning over your roster looking to find cheap Americans then you better have 10 Canadians ready to start. I like that players who have shown loyalty to the league and to particular teams (and vice versa) can have this added benefit. I don't see it as an erosion of Canadian players in the league. I think the "technical Canadians" like Ben Cahoon in the past and Drew Wolitarski now are more harmful to what it means to be a National player in the CFL.
That's another reason that I don't have a problem with it. If it brings continuity I'm all for it.
Logged
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2020, 11:08:40 PM »

I have thought that this was a good idea for a long time. It rewards teams and players for loyalty. If you're constantly turning over your roster looking to find cheap Americans then you better have 10 Canadians ready to start. I like that players who have shown loyalty to the league and to particular teams (and vice versa) can have this added benefit. I don't see it as an erosion of Canadian players in the league. I think the "technical Canadians" like Ben Cahoon in the past and Drew Wolitarski now are more harmful to what it means to be a National player in the CFL.

Very well said.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2020, 11:28:52 PM »

A few of my thoughts on all of this...

-- I agree with whoever mentioned that a vet American status should be made, rather than referring to them as Canadians.  I think that would have cleared up a lot of the confusion that fans have.  I understand it as trying to protect some of the guys that have been playing here a long time.  A Canadian can roster into the starting line up in lieu of a vet American. (I believe BC rostered 8 starting Nats at times last year, so yes, some teams may end up going this route).  Means that teams can't blow the wad on a few key players, and fill the rest of the starting line up with rookies to balance the pocket book.  Anyone notice if it specified whether years accumulated towards this include PR years?  Or is it active roster years only?

-- As for the quarterback controversy, I'm really intrigued to see how it's called once the games start.  It would affect Bennett because he played other roles on Specials.  Not sure where else it would impact except trick or fancy plays.  Can a quarterback still receive the ball (ie, pass off to the RB who then throws it to the QB)?  Because he originally lined up as a quarterback, does it count?  Or, because in the end he acted like a receiver, is it illegal substitution?  Or is this just to keep some teams from getting fancy with their roster (ie, rostering Strev as a RB, keep 2 other QB on the roster, use Strev as needed as RB or Specials during the game knowing if we lose our 2 QBs, we still have a third one hidden on the roster)?  Basically, multi-tasking their QB3?  But then, who qualifies as a quarterback?  Can receivers and running backs still throw the ball?  Without knowing the intention of the rule change, it's hard to know how they plan to apply it.  Intrigued.
Logged
gobombersgo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3480



« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2020, 04:14:50 AM »

How many teams in the past have not had 3 American vets in the line-up? What is this new classification going to change?
Logged

TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #59 on: January 09, 2020, 11:43:24 AM »

Sounds like the number of national starters goes up by 3 (Used to be 7). Those 3 spots are taken by vet imports. Kinda a wash.

It seems to me the intent here is to try to encourage team continuity and reduce player churn.  The league has a horrible intra-team churn right now, with these 1yr contracts and >50% of players in FA every year.  But I'm not sure this change really fixes that to any significant degree.  If they wanted to target churn, why not make it same-team=3 years but any-team=5 or 6 years, not just 4?

I guess it also placates the CFLPA IMP vets as it gives them a special status, and possibly higher salary (not sure where the SMS will come from!).

A third possibility is this is in preparation for the Maritime expansion.  This would force the Schooners to choose at least 3 4+ year vets from day one.  Otherwise they could have sniped everyone's unprotected star rookies at cheap near-ELC prices.

What's the abuse angle for all of this?  Does this in any way allow a team to put in a crap NAT somewhere and have him stub his toe on play 1 and replace him (maybe with other position shuffling) with a vet IMP (FAKENAT)?  Or because the 3 FAKENATs have to be on field at all times anyhow (or a real NAT), you can't use this as a sneaky way to get your 4th DI onfield to replace the stubbed-toe crap NAT?

If there's no way (for the Riders) to abuse this with fake injuries, then I don't think the sky is falling.

We saw Streveler move out to a receiver position and actually getting a reception at least once. From Adams IIRC.

Not just that, Strev caught a pass on a direct Adams snap in the GC!!!  The play you're referring to had our QB lined up at WR.  The GC play was with Strev pretending to be under center.  And not just WPG ran plays with QBs being receiver, other CFL teams did this year too.  (Heck, the wildcard NFL games last weekend had the exact same play which succeeded wildly!)  By the current wording, it does sound like putting your QB out at WR for a wildcat play will now be illegal.  Huh?  That's really stupid and lame, as it adds a bit of fun whenever it's used, and it's been used for many, many years.  Perhaps the wording allows for the Strev-under-center fake play, but not the Strev-lines-up-at-WR play.  That would be even more stupid.

But, yes, from the sounds of it you'll never see QBs (like Bennett) covering/tackling downfield on kickoffs and punts any more.  (but FGs as holder still remains viable.)  That's ok with me.

lol @ the confusion

Everything Ambrosie does is confusing and convoluted and complicates the rules/game.  He has done zippo nada to simplify anything.  Maybe that's how he gets all this stuffed passed: no one understands what any of it actually means!

Just out of curiosity how would you overhaul the ratio rules?

What about get rid of roster requirements completely and just leave in place the starting-NAT rules?  7 NATs must be onfield on every O/D play (spread across O and D in any manner).  No vet FAKENAT crap, or simply add a new class VETIMPs, and say 3 VETIMPs must be onfield on every O/D play (...ditto...).  Finally add a new rule that every ST play must have 6 NATs onfield.  If you want GLOBs, say 1 GLOB must be onfield on every O/D play (...ditto...).  No special QB status/designation.

You get rid of all the crazy roster rules, it's simply about who is onfield for game reps.  Teams would still have to roster many NATs because they'd need them to step in in case of injury.  Not much would really change except you would eliminate all the cruft of all the insanely complex multi-level roster/starter.  Everyone in the world would be able to understand the above in one simple little chart, and if you want to tweak the count of each class, it's simple.

Ratio is complicated. lol

It's like the tax code.  All these page of rules when really it should all be contained on one page and explained in one chart (as I suggest above).

If the uber-fans on this (or any) forum cannot immediately and readily understand the ratio and/or these crazy Ambrosie changes then something is wrong with the rules.  They always add to the cruft.  Why not hack and slash and simplify it?

On a punt, if the ball is snapped to the real punter or a RB for that matter, he's on the field illegally. On a fake FG, he would still be the holder even if he doesn't accept the ball. On a punt, he'd move out of the QB/Punter spot.

What if you line up for a punt but have both Medlock and Strev standing side-by-side, 4 feet apart, 15 yards deep?  Then Rempel snaps to either one depending on the play call (punt->Medlock or fake->Strev)?  Or is there some rule that governs punt alignment?

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck. 

I totally agree with you.  Mandating NATs should be job #1 of the CFL, or it's just NFL-lite.  The hitherto fake NATs like Cahoon, Singleton, and even our Woli, are an annoyance when they're not on your team Wink but really not a huge problem because they are relatively rare.

I agree with whoever mentioned that a vet American status should be made, rather than referring to them as Canadians.  I think that would have cleared up a lot of the confusion that fans have.

I 100% agree with you and paw that the new FAKENAT vets should get their own designation rather than be called NATs or NAT*s or special-NATs.  How about VETIMPs, or since "IMP" is obsolete, how about USVETS or AMERIVETS, AMVETS or VETAMs?  Yes, please, anything but "NAT"!!

Anyone notice if it specified whether years accumulated towards this include PR years?  Or is it active roster years only?

That's a darn good question.  From what I say, it looks like it's years-in-CFL, so it would include PR years.

How many teams in the past have not had 3 American vets in the line-up? What is this new classification going to change?

Much like Ambrosie's other pie-in-the-sky PR boondoggles and optics pipedreams, there's a good chance this will all change almost nothing!  What did the GLOBs hoopla accomplish?  WPG got an unfair advantage by having the only good one!  Good for us, bad for everyone else.  Watch, with this new Ambrosie-nuttiness we'll see no change except SSK will find a way to fake an injury to replace Hurl with Solly and start only 6 real NATs.  Grin Grin Cheesy
Logged

Never go full Rider!
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24802


« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2020, 12:27:26 PM »

Following calmer deliberation, it appears that while I don't have ALL of it wrong, I was a little hasty in my doom and gloom scenario.  I missed the part where they bumped the NTL starter requirement to 10.  For the moment, it does seem a bit of a wash, and does make a long term /American veteran more valuable.  

However, I will remain concerned that we are on the top of a slippery slope.  It seems to me that labeling veteran American players as Fake Canadians rather than just making it a distinct roster requirement is disingenuous and foreshadows the eventual eroding of National status.  We used to complain about fake Canadians like Ben Cahoon, but that loophole just got stretched to accommodate a Mack truck.  

I see your point, but I also think this could open the door for some young NATs to get playing time as well. Teams who employ 3 vets will either have to back them up with a 3 year vet or sub in a young NAT if the starter is injured. Given the SMS, I would think teams will value their not quite a starter but a capable backup NAT players a lot more now. I see this as a good thing. Forces teams to look beyond their starting 7 NATs and building their roster with NATs that can contribute beyond STs.

Beyond that, I think it will extend the careers of many veteran IMPs as they now have a lot of added value to the ratio and I like that idea.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2020, 02:34:58 PM »

Do you have to declare who your phony Nats are?  Or is it a designation that is automatically attributed to all that qualify? 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sec227
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 88


« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2020, 02:43:59 PM »

Do you have to declare who your phony Nats are?  Or is it a designation that is automatically attributed to all that qualify? 
Lol..Phony Nats..Maybe thats what they will be designated. lol
Logged
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2020, 03:15:13 PM »

Agreed that the nomenclature is disingenuous. It should be "7 Nats + 3 Vets, whereas vets can be subbed with Nats if so desired"
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2020, 03:54:28 PM »

If Vet Ints are "Nats", we can call them Naturalized Vets, Nat Vets. 

If continuity is the factor in this, then the "time in league" and "Time with team" need to have a wider differentiation.  And they should look at the stats to make it more representative, like how many "Vets" qualify for designation under the current structure, and how many would if it were, say, 4 contiguous years with the team, 7 years in the league.  The rule should be set so that this designation becomes something that sets certain players apart, currently all it does is make teams designate certain players that are already getting extra love, and by not designating other, you are making GM's choose favorites.. more divisive than inclusive...

How do we measure years?  Is a year where the player never gets off the PR still a year?  Or if a player signs for the last reg season game, is that a year? 

It should be a special enough designation to encourage teams to re-sign these vets.  There should be an SMS implication as well to the designation, say allowing a 10% of salary signing bonus to be added that is non-SMS.  This would allow them to have a benefit to having status similar to a Nat, the way Nats get paid more than similarly talented Ints.

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2020, 04:23:57 PM »

If Vet Ints are "Nats", we can call them Naturalized Vets, Nat Vets. 

If continuity is the factor in this, then the "time in league" and "Time with team" need to have a wider differentiation.  And they should look at the stats to make it more representative, like how many "Vets" qualify for designation under the current structure, and how many would if it were, say, 4 contiguous years with the team, 7 years in the league.  The rule should be set so that this designation becomes something that sets certain players apart, currently all it does is make teams designate certain players that are already getting extra love, and by not designating other, you are making GM's choose favorites.. more divisive than inclusive...

How do we measure years?  Is a year where the player never gets off the PR still a year?  Or if a player signs for the last reg season game, is that a year? 

It should be a special enough designation to encourage teams to re-sign these vets.  There should be an SMS implication as well to the designation, say allowing a 10% of salary signing bonus to be added that is non-SMS.  This would allow them to have a benefit to having status similar to a Nat, the way Nats get paid more than similarly talented Ints.



I'm going to disagree on this point.  The whole point to the SMS cap is to even the playing field between teams with money and teams without.  As soon as money outside the SMS is allowed, some teams will abuse it just because they can.  If it starts to become a case where Vets start expecting 10% "free money" (above and beyond what they negotiate for their SMS contract), suddenly wealthy teams can sign a bunch of Vets and give them bonuses, whereas other teams may bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (or may end up carrying the least number of Vets required because the additional bonus money is more than their finances allow).  It's important to remember that the Cap is there to keep teams solvent; I don't think adding more ways for some teams to circumnavigate that is going to help the league.

Any monetary changes they may want to make to help players who've been in the league a while should be included in the SMS.  If there's concern that the gap between the wealthiest players and the least paid players is getting too large, then they can institute rules to restrict that, but hidden money is not the answer (in my opinion).
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2020, 04:36:06 PM »

I'm going to disagree on this point.  The whole point to the SMS cap is to even the playing field between teams with money and teams without.  As soon as money outside the SMS is allowed, some teams will abuse it just because they can.  If it starts to become a case where Vets start expecting 10% "free money" (above and beyond what they negotiate for their SMS contract), suddenly wealthy teams can sign a bunch of Vets and give them bonuses, whereas other teams may bankrupt themselves trying to keep up (or may end up carrying the least number of Vets required because the additional bonus money is more than their finances allow).  It's important to remember that the Cap is there to keep teams solvent; I don't think adding more ways for some teams to circumnavigate that is going to help the league.

Any monetary changes they may want to make to help players who've been in the league a while should be included in the SMS.  If there's concern that the gap between the wealthiest players and the least paid players is getting too large, then they can institute rules to restrict that, but hidden money is not the answer (in my opinion).


OK, I guess I didn't specify that well enough... we are talking *3* designated Nat Nats  (Naturalized Nationals) on each team, and I am suggesting allowing a 10% non-SMS bonus to re-sign these players.  This creates an incentive for continuity, and ability to keep players AWAY from teams that want to overpay them.  Exactly the opposite of what you say.

But it only works if the Nat Nats are a more exclusive group, 4 years CFL or 3 years team is not enough...  should be 7 years CFL, 4 years team at the least...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21919



« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2020, 04:42:56 PM »

OK, I guess I didn't specify that well enough... we are talking *3* designated Nat Nats  (Naturalized Nationals) on each team, and I am suggesting allowing a 10% non-SMS bonus to re-sign these players.  This creates an incentive for continuity, and ability to keep players AWAY from teams that want to overpay them.  Exactly the opposite of what you say.

But it only works if the Nat Nats are a more exclusive group, 4 years CFL or 3 years team is not enough...  should be 7 years CFL, 4 years team at the least...

The Salary Management System works because all salaries fall into its system. The player isn't "overpaid" (from the player's perspective) if some team is willing to pay it. Continuity is often (but not always) in the hands of the team's GM. They either pay what the market dictates or they won't. What a player is worth to every team may be different. Building in off the books salary outside of injury is not a good idea.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2020, 05:32:30 PM »

The Salary Management System works because all salaries fall into its system. The player isn't "overpaid" (from the player's perspective) if some team is willing to pay it. Continuity is often (but not always) in the hands of the team's GM. They either pay what the market dictates or they won't. What a player is worth to every team may be different. Building in off the books salary outside of injury is not a good idea.

You want your big names to stay with their teams.  Off SMS bonuses for fringe players would be dumb.  But a small incentive to "all things being equal" entice a star player to remain with his current team rather than jumping ship, and allowing that to be off the SMS to give teams that want to spend a little extra to be able to keep players that will sell more seats and merch (which can help pay the non-SMS monies, potentially making it revenue neutral or even profitable) make the league and its fan base stronger...

Again, this would be for the three designated Nat Nats only, and voluntary for each team.  An easy way to be able to reward Nat Nats for remaining with their teams... and again, I think Nat Nats need at least 4 contiguous years with current team, or 7 i the league as a minimum for this designation...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2020, 05:34:21 PM »

This interview with Walters touches on some things with the "Nationalized Vets" that we hadn't considered, and that's in-game replacement.  Looks like there is actually a lot more for coaching staff to consider when making their rosters and declaring someone a "Nationalized Vet", most notably, who would replace them if injured.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2020/01/09/walters-weighs-cfl-meetings/

Logged
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2020, 05:44:00 PM »

You want your big names to stay with their teams.  Off SMS bonuses for fringe players would be dumb.  But a small incentive to "all things being equal" entice a star player to remain with his current team rather than jumping ship, and allowing that to be off the SMS to give teams that want to spend a little extra to be able to keep players that will sell more seats and merch (which can help pay the non-SMS monies, potentially making it revenue neutral or even profitable) make the league and its fan base stronger...

Again, this would be for the three designated Nat Nats only, and voluntary for each team.  An easy way to be able to reward Nat Nats for remaining with their teams... and again, I think Nat Nats need at least 4 contiguous years with current team, or 7 i the league as a minimum for this designation...

Sounds like the 3 declared Nat Vets are *per game* though, not per season.  I suppose you could incentivize that particular game's pay cheque, but from what I read, the decision on who to declare to these roles is based more on who's backing that person up.  So it doesn't seem fair that Stanley Bryant gets an extra bonus because they have a Nat to replace him in game, whereas Darvin Adams won't get it because an Imp is his in-game replacement (so he wouldn't be declared a Nat Vet). 

I agree that it would be nice to find a way to encourage players to keep continuity with a single team (as a fan, I like to know my favourite players are sticking around), but I'm not sure this designation, as it is currently outlined to play out, would be the way to do it.  (At least with my current understanding of the designation...which changes with each thing I read on it!)
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21919



« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2020, 05:48:10 PM »

You want your big names to stay with their teams.  Off SMS bonuses for fringe players would be dumb.  But a small incentive to "all things being equal" entice a star player to remain with his current team rather than jumping ship, and allowing that to be off the SMS to give teams that want to spend a little extra to be able to keep players that will sell more seats and merch (which can help pay the non-SMS monies, potentially making it revenue neutral or even profitable) make the league and its fan base stronger...

Again, this would be for the three designated Nat Nats only, and voluntary for each team.  An easy way to be able to reward Nat Nats for remaining with their teams... and again, I think Nat Nats need at least 4 contiguous years with current team, or 7 i the league as a minimum for this designation...

This is what makes no sense. A GM decides what he wants to pay a player. If he wants to keep him, he pays him accordingly. If a player leaves for the difference between an offer and a slightly larger offer that would be mitigated by a "small incentive" then there are probably other factors unrelated to money. If you want an actual way to keep star players from moving, the CFL could look at implementing a Franchise Tag system like the NFL. That might have the desired effect, but players obviously do not like restricted like that so good luck negotiating it.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2020, 05:51:30 PM »

So there is another Global also added to the PR going from 2 to 3. A total of 2 on AR means 5 in total.

Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2020, 06:51:47 AM »

This is what makes no sense. A GM decides what he wants to pay a player. If he wants to keep him, he pays him accordingly. If a player leaves for the difference between an offer and a slightly larger offer that would be mitigated by a "small incentive" then there are probably other factors unrelated to money. If you want an actual way to keep star players from moving, the CFL could look at implementing a Franchise Tag system like the NFL. That might have the desired effect, but players obviously do not like restricted like that so good luck negotiating it.

NBA and NHL give teams advantages to re-sign their own players...  and it works...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2020, 02:56:51 PM »

Sounds like the 3 declared Nat Vets are *per game* though, not per season.  I suppose you could incentivize that particular game's pay cheque, but from what I read, the decision on who to declare to these roles is based more on who's backing that person up.  So it doesn't seem fair that Stanley Bryant gets an extra bonus because they have a Nat to replace him in game, whereas Darvin Adams won't get it because an Imp is his in-game replacement (so he wouldn't be declared a Nat Vet). 

I agree that it would be nice to find a way to encourage players to keep continuity with a single team (as a fan, I like to know my favourite players are sticking around), but I'm not sure this designation, as it is currently outlined to play out, would be the way to do it.  (At least with my current understanding of the designation...which changes with each thing I read on it!)


If I understand it correctly a DI couldn't replace an import with the new designation. S. Bryant if he wasn't starting could replace an interior OL injured in game.

This is another nutty idea from Ambrosie IMO.
Logged

No more excuses.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2020, 03:42:26 PM »

If I understand it correctly a DI couldn't replace an import with the new designation. S. Bryant if he wasn't starting could replace an interior OL injured in game.

This is another nutty idea from Ambrosie IMO.

The way I read it, if an American who is designated as one of three Fake Canadians, or any of the Real Canadian starters is injured, they may be replaced by either a National player or another American who meets the Fake Canadian standard (3 years of service with same club).

It seems pretty clear that this creates a strong incentive to have your DI player as a long service player.  For example, let's say you are starting Jake Thomas, and you have designated Jackson Jeffcoat as one of your Fake Canadians.  If Craig Roh is your DI, he would be eligible to replace either Thomas or Jeffcoat in the event of injury while still maintaining ratio.  He would also be able to rotate in for Drake Nevis as a DI without any injuries, without any ration implications.

I don't think there is much likelihood of teams gaming the system to the point they would fake injuries to a Canadian starter just to get the replacement in.  And like i said, I think it incentivizes the retention of veteran Americans who can play multiple roles. But I wonder about how Jeffcoat (in the example above) gets a regular rest?  I guess he has to be spelled off by a real Canadian, i.e. a replacement for Kongbo. 

The other question is can you do a chain of substitution? Using the above example, say Jeffcoat is your Fake Canadian and you are starting Thomas, but your DI is not Roh, but Random Newguy.  If Thomas goes down, can Drake Nevis (as a 3 year vet) "sub" for him under this rule, and then Random Newguy (DI) come in to Nevis's old slot?  Based on the way the rule is worded, I think so.   Which means that the rule not only incentivizes veteran DIs, but it also encouraged having a health mix of American veterans throughout your roster. 

I am starting to see the logic of this, at least from the perspective of the American members of CFLPA.

Quote
In the event of a game injury to any of the Clubs? ten (10) National Starters, the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2020, 03:55:22 PM »

I think you've got that backwards in your example. Roh would also have tobe a fake Canadian so he could replace Thomas or Jefferson in game due to injury. He couldn't rotate with them in the normal sense. It would seem he couldn't substitute for Jefferson if he wasn't a fake Canadian and he couldn't be used in rotation in the normal sense.

Jeffcoat couldn't be the fake Canadian because he'd be starting regularly.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:02:13 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2020, 04:18:57 PM »

The way I read it, if an American who is designated as one of three Fake Canadians, or any of the Real Canadian starters is injured, they may be replaced by either a National player or another American who meets the Fake Canadian standard (3 years of service with same club).

It seems pretty clear that this creates a strong incentive to have your DI player as a long service player.  For example, let's say you are starting Jake Thomas, and you have designated Jackson Jeffcoat as one of your Fake Canadians.  If Craig Roh is your DI, he would be eligible to replace either Thomas or Jeffcoat in the event of injury while still maintaining ratio.  He would also be able to rotate in for Drake Nevis as a DI without any injuries, without any ration implications.

I don't think there is much likelihood of teams gaming the system to the point they would fake injuries to a Canadian starter just to get the replacement in.  And like i said, I think it incentivizes the retention of veteran Americans who can play multiple roles. But I wonder about how Jeffcoat (in the example above) gets a regular rest?  I guess he has to be spelled off by a real Canadian, i.e. a replacement for Kongbo. 

The other question is can you do a chain of substitution? Using the above example, say Jeffcoat is your Fake Canadian and you are starting Thomas, but your DI is not Roh, but Random Newguy.  If Thomas goes down, can Drake Nevis (as a 3 year vet) "sub" for him under this rule, and then Random Newguy (DI) come in to Nevis's old slot?  Based on the way the rule is worded, I think so.   Which means that the rule not only incentivizes veteran DIs, but it also encouraged having a health mix of American veterans throughout your roster. 

I am starting to see the logic of this, at least from the perspective of the American members of CFLPA.


Not any American that meets the standard, but one of the three designated (either at the start of the season, or start of the game, not sure which applies... probably game..)

The league needs to find an affordable way to maintain player loyalty to a team.  Allowing a limited number of players to receive non-SMS bonuses for loyalty (and this should be for Nats and Ints) would make a lot of sense.  Nothing mandatory, optional.  

In a league of guaranteed contracts, giving teams the ability to offer current players a longer term makes sense.  Doesn't work in the CFL.  A limited non-SMS signing bonus for a limited number of players is an easy way of rewarding and encouraging loyalty.  It "unlevels" the playing field in the right way...

I think you've got that backwards in your example. Roh would also have to a fake Canadian so he could replace Thomas or Jefferson in game due to injury. He couldn't rotate with them in the normal sense. It would seem he couldn't substitute for Jefferson if he wasn't a fake Canadian and he couldn't be used in rotation in the normal sense.

Jeffcoat couldn't be the fake Canadian because he'd be starting regularly.



Exactly, there would be 10 Nat starters, including the three designated Nat Nats.  So rotating a Nat Nat into a Nat spot for an injury still leaves a Nat starting spot to fill...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2020, 04:57:51 PM »

I think you've got that backwards in your example. Roh would also have to a fake Canadian so he could replace Thomas or Jefferson in game due to injury. He couldn't rotate with them in the normal sense. It would seem he couldn't substitute for Jefferson if he wasn't a fake Canadian and he couldn't be used in rotation in the normal sense.

Jeffcoat couldn't be the fake Canadian because he'd be starting regularly.



Read the quoted part in my post again. At the start of the game, the teams designated 3 Fake Canadians, who are all starters, included in the 10 starting Nationals.  So, Jeffcoat is a starter, been with the team 3 years, let's say the team designates him.

Then, according to the quoted bit, if Jeffcoat gets injured, he can be replaced by "...any other American who qualifies under the amended definition of National".

The plainest reading of that is that when a National starter (Canadian or Fake Canadian) gets injured, another 3 year American veteran is able to be designated at that point.  So Roh doesn't have to be one of the 3 Fake Canadians at the start of the game, but if he qualifies as a 3 year veteran, then he can step in.  I don't think there is any other way to read that. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2020, 05:07:29 PM »

Read the quoted part in my post again. At the start of the game, the teams designated 3 Fake Canadians, who are all starters, included in the 10 starting Nationals.  So, Jeffcoat is a starter, been with the team 3 years, let's say the team designates him.

Then, according to the quoted bit, if Jeffcoat gets injured, he can be replaced by "...any other American who qualifies under the amended definition of National".

The plainest reading of that is that when a National starter (Canadian or Fake Canadian) gets injured, another 3 year American veteran is able to be designated at that point.  So Roh doesn't have to be one of the 3 Fake Canadians at the start of the game, but if he qualifies as a 3 year veteran, then he can step in.  I don't think there is any other way to read that. 

So, you are saying if a designated Nat Nat gets injured, you can change the designation of a non designated Nat Nat to being a designated Nat Nat?  So, you basically have to have 3 Int vets in the starting rotation, but they don't have to be the same 3 throughout the game? 

Question, how many backup Int's will you have that qualify as fake Nats?  Pretty sure any Int's you have on he roster who have 4 years CFL or 3 years team experience are starting...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2020, 05:13:38 PM »

Read the quoted part in my post again. At the start of the game, the teams designated 3 Fake Canadians, who are all starters, included in the 10 starting Nationals.  So, Jeffcoat is a starter, been with the team 3 years, let's say the team designates him.

Then, according to the quoted bit, if Jeffcoat gets injured, he can be replaced by "...any other American who qualifies under the amended definition of National".

The plainest reading of that is that when a National starter (Canadian or Fake Canadian) gets injured, another 3 year American veteran is able to be designated at that point.  So Roh doesn't have to be one of the 3 Fake Canadians at the start of the game, but if he qualifies as a 3 year veteran, then he can step in.  I don't think there is any other way to read that. 

I don't read it that way but do find it very confusing. You may be correct.

The issue is that those 3 year players are likely already starting. I'm not so sure that the replacements wouldn't need to come from the non starters listed as DI's. The DI's at the end of the year were Grant, Medlock, K. Jones and one of Nevis or Richardson.

Grant wasn't a 3 year player. Medlock isn't going to replace any other player. Nevis and Richardson rotated ( on of them would have been DI # 4 ) when either Kongbo, Hansen or Thomas came onto the field.

In that scenario I suppose Nevis ( 3+ year player  ) could be on the field the same time as Richardson ( 1 year player ) if Kongbo or Thomas was injured and not on the field? OTOH would do you justify that when you are rotating 2 Canadians to sustain the ratio in the 1st place ( ratio by committee )?

We'll see how this plays out but IMO it's a pointless idea by Ambrosie
Logged

No more excuses.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2020, 05:18:04 PM »

So, you are saying if a designated Nat Nat gets injured, you can change the designation of a non designated Nat Nat to being a designated Nat Nat?  So, you basically have to have 3 Int vets in the starting rotation, but they don't have to be the same 3 throughout the game? 

Question, how many backup Int's will you have that qualify as fake Nats?  Pretty sure any Int's you have on he roster who have 4 years CFL or 3 years team experience are starting...

I don't know what you mean by Nat Nat.

But it is 100%  clear that 3 of the 10 starting Nationals will be Fake Canadians.   It is also clear that the part I quoted allows another eligible American (3 year veteran) to substitute for an injured National (which includes Real Canadians and Fake Canadians).

That does 2 things.  It means your DIs might become more likely to be experienced players rather than guys you are developing.  Secondly, it probably means that other vets in the starting line up who qualify but aren't designated at the start of the game, can help you make ratio in the event of an injury.  In other words the qualifying-but-non-designated American replaces the Fake Canadian in the ratio, and then the DI can come in to "sub" for the spot.  This is a "chain substitution".  I am less certain that this second aspect would be permissible, right now it seems to be a gray area.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2020, 05:27:25 PM »

I don't read it that way but do find it very confusing. You may be correct.

The issue is that those 3 year players are likely already starting. I'm not so sure that the replacements wouldn't need to come from the non starters listed as DI's. The DI's at the end of the year were Grant, Medlock, K. Jones and one of Nevis or Richardson.

Grant wasn't a 3 year player. Medlock isn't going to replace any other player. Nevis and Richardson rotated ( on of them would have been DI # 4 ) when either Kongbo, Hansen or Thomas came onto the field.

In that scenario I suppose Nevis ( 3+ year player  ) could be on the field the same time as Richardson ( 1 year player ) if Kongbo or Thomas was injured and not on the field? OTOH would do you justify that when you are rotating 2 Canadians to sustain the ratio in the 1st place ( ratio by committee )?

We'll see how this plays out but IMO it's a pointless idea by Ambrosie

Well, I don't know if its pointless.  I am not crazy about this, but it does seen to create incentives for teams to create more job security for veteran Americans.  And you can see how that would be a bargaining priority for that part of the CFLPA membership. 

It certainly has the potential to trickle down and influence how teams use DIs.  Using your example, it becomes a higher "cost" to a team to use a DI spot on a kicker like Medlock rather than a multi-functional DB, like Chandler Fenner who could play SAM, CB or safety (and maybe DHB in a pinch), especially if he can help you maintain ratio.

All of a sudden, it might make sense to dress Foketi as a DI, because he could back up all 5 positions on the o-line, and replace any one on the interior in the ratio. 

This bears watching...
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2020, 05:27:29 PM »

10 starting Nationals is misleading. Teams won't actually be starting 10 Nationals fake or otherwise. They can only substitute for injured Canadians.

There aren't enough roster spots for a fake Canadian to replace an actual Canadian and then replace the 1st fake Canadian replacement due to multiple injuries. ( Chain substitution ) whether allowed or not: there just aren't the depth bodies for that to happen.

It's also not clear whether these fake Canadians must be declared at the beginning of the game.
Logged

No more excuses.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2020, 05:33:33 PM »

10 starting Nationals is misleading. Teams won't actually be starting 10 Nationals fake or otherwise. They can only substitute for injured Canadians.

There aren't enough roster spots for a fake Canadian to replace an actual Canadian and then replace the 1st fake Canadian replacement due to multiple injuries. ( Chain substitution ) whether allowed or not: there just aren't the depth bodies for that to happen.

It's also not clear whether these fake Canadians must be declared at the beginning of the game.


Sorry, but the bolded part is categorically wrong.    The new rule REQUIRES teams to start 10 Nationals, which includes the 3 Fake Canadians.  That is crystal clear.  That is the first part of the change.

The second aspect of the change is the ability for other vet Americans to substitute for injured National Starters of any kind.  That also seems pretty clear on a plain reading of the rule.

Now, the "chain substitution" concept (which I concede is confusing) is not clear as to whether it is permissible.  That is a theory at this point. 

Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2020, 05:36:45 PM »

Well, I don't know if its pointless.  I am not crazy about this, but it does seen to create incentives for teams to create more job security for veteran Americans.  And you can see how that would be a bargaining priority for that part of the CFLPA membership. 

It certainly has the potential to trickle down and influence how teams use DIs.  Using your example, it becomes a higher "cost" to a team to use a DI spot on a kicker like Medlock rather than a multi-functional DB, like Chandler Fenner who could play SAM, CB or safety (and maybe DHB in a pinch), especially if he can help you maintain ratio.

All of a sudden, it might make sense to dress Foketi as a DI, because he could back up all 5 positions on the o-line, and replace any one on the interior in the ratio. 

This bears watching...

Re Fenner example: Like most teams both OLB's and 4 of 5 players in the secondary are imports. So that would have marginal benefit assuming a given DB's can play multiple positions which include safety.

Foketi example ( not with the team ) makes nominal sense. OTOH he can only play due to injury and would add no value on ST's. It would restrict the development of Canadian OL we're trying to develop as all teams are doing.

Security for veteran Americans is based on performance and SMS. Isn't the point of the ratio to protect and develop Canadian players, not to loophole around ways to create fake Canadians?

The young imports we retain as DI's are specialists and they need to be very good or they need to become starters by year 2 in most cases.

IE: They are often replaced next season if one of those criteria are met.

Keeping a veteran American as a fake Canadian IMO directly impedes / restricts Canadian players.
Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2020, 05:41:44 PM »


Sorry, but the bolded part is categorically wrong.    The new rule REQUIRES teams to start 10 Nationals, which includes the 3 Fake Canadians.  That is crystal clear.  That is the first part of the change.

The second aspect of the change is the ability for other vet Americans to substitute for injured National Starters of any kind.  That also seems pretty clear on a plain reading of the rule.

Now, the "chain substitution" concept (which I concede is confusing) is not clear as to whether it is permissible.  That is a theory at this point. 



It's not crystal clear to me.  Imports on the roster are limited. We only have 4 DI's. Where are all these fake Canadians coming from? Magic wand?

That's the only place fake Canadians that aren't already starting could come from. I guarantee 3 of them are not going to be starting.

Calling Nevis, Jeffcoat and S. Bryant  starting Canadians?  There are still only 7 real Canadians starting.  Teams don't always have the ability to retain veterans whether Canadian or import.

If Jeffcoat retired and Nevis went elsewhere in free agency then what? We'd have to start 4 real Canadian OL. We already have issues with the ratio losing Kongbo on defense in the old system.

Take our Grey Cup roster as an example and explain how we would have had 10 Nationals starting.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:56:03 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2020, 06:01:53 PM »

It does sound like this "ratio adjustment" was agreed upon by the league to appease the Import veteran contingent who make up a large part of the voting base in the CFLPA.  I don't believe it was a strategic move to improve or change the game, just a concession to players who always want more in order to get them to sign the agreement.  This group is looking for some measure of protection as it's "easy as pie" to cut their hard-earned experience for a cheaper rookie to save $$$.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 07:02:52 PM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2020, 06:06:30 PM »

A Nat can substitute for a Nationalized Vet.  It's not a case of "who on the DI can fill in if a Nat Vet goes down", because, as mentioned, there aren't enough DI spots (especially once you allocate a spot to your kicker and your returner).

For example, if Bighill is declared one of the 3 Nat Vets for the game, he fills one of 10 "Canadian" roster spots.  If he gets injured, Miles can go in to substitute for him.  A relatively new American DI linebacker could not.  Could Wilson slide over to Bighill's spot and have a Canadian fill in for Wilson?  Sure, I imagine so.

Teams just need to be smart with their depth.  Where they place rookie Americans for depth cannot be behind one of the Nationalized Vets.  Ex. Grant being the depth if Adams gets hurt.  Because of this scenario, Adams wouldn't be declared one of the 3 Nat Vets because he couldn't be replaced properly in game.  Same with our D-line guys.  

The Walters interview I read suggested that for the Grey Cup game, if these rules were in place, he would've probably declared Bryant, Hardrick, and possibly Bighill as the 3.  Mainly because of depth.  I suppose if you filled your entire DI list with American Vets specifically for substitution in these situations, they could drop in as well.  But not a lot of vets would want to sit on the DI all season, and why waste DI spots when your OL depth is already Canadian?
 
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2020, 06:08:48 PM »

It does sound like this "ratio adjustment" was agreed upon by the league to appease the Import veteran contingent who make up a large part of the voting base in the CFLPA.  I don't believe it was a strategic move to improve or change the game, just a concession to players who always want more in order to get them to sign the agreement.

It's playing with fire. Veterans want more money whether they are Canadian or imports.

Both Hardrick and Bryant were potential free agents. We did re-sign Hardrick and we probably will be able to re-sign S. Bryant. Both would qualify as fake Nationals.

What would have been the scenario if both left the team? We'd be in a bidding war to find other import OL that qualified or we'd be starting 5 actual Canadian OL? We have zero import OL on the roster that would qualify except them.

Better increase QB roster up to about 5 instead of 2 because they'd be dropping like flies very game.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:16:41 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #90 on: January 10, 2020, 06:15:19 PM »

A Nat can substitute for a Nationalized Vet.  It's not a case of "who on the DI can fill in if a Nat Vet goes down", because, as mentioned, there aren't enough DI spots (especially once you allocate a spot to your kicker and your returner).

For example, if Bighill is declared one of the 3 Nat Vets for the game, he fills one of 10 "Canadian" roster spots.  If he gets injured, Miles can go in to substitute for him.  A relatively new American DI linebacker could not.  Could Wilson slide over to Bighill's spot and have a Canadian fill in for Wilson?  Sure, I imagine so.

Teams just need to be smart with their depth.  Where they place rookie Americans for depth cannot be behind one of the Nationalized Vets.  Ex. Grant being the depth if Adams gets hurt.  Because of this scenario, Adams wouldn't be declared one of the 3 Nat Vets because he couldn't be replaced properly in game.  Same with our D-line guys.  

The Walters interview I read suggested that for the Grey Cup game, if these rules were in place, he would've probably declared Bryant, Hardrick, and possibly Bighill as the 3.  Mainly because of depth.  I suppose if you filled your entire DI list with American Vets specifically for substitution in these situations, they could drop in as well.  But not a lot of vets would want to sit on the DI all season, and why waste DI spots when your OL depth is already Canadian?
 

Miles could always have replaced Bighill if an injury occured. Making Bighill a naturalized player doesn't change that.

In the example mentioned for the Grey Cup roster. If either Bryant or Hardrick were injured our only options would have been an actual Canadian OL. Can't ever see a 3+ year import OL as a DI in the future.

In the case of Bighill, K. Jones qualified as a 3 year player but Miles or Wilson would more likely be the choice. As we saw in 2019, Briggs moved to WIL when Wilson moved to MLB.
Logged

No more excuses.
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #91 on: January 10, 2020, 06:29:10 PM »

Miles could always have replaced Bighill if an injury occured. Making Bighill a naturalized player doesn't change that.

In the example mentioned for the Grey Cup roster. If either Bryant or Hardrick were injured our only options would have been an actual Canadian OL. Can't ever see a 3+ year import OL as a DI in the future.

In the case of Bighill, K. Jones qualified as a 3 year player but Miles or Wilson would more likely be the choice. As we saw in 2019, Briggs moved to WIL when Wilson moved to MLB.

Yup.  Nothing would have changed.  But, as you said, this makes Bryant and Hardrick more valuable than a new American OL replacement, because if they leave, now that Nat Vet position has to shift elsewhere.  I suppose if Alexander stays at safety, the designation could slide there. 

It won't change a lot, in my eyes.  Mainly just in the case of long term injury, or if the injuries on a team start to add up.  One more ball to juggle at times.  But, for the most part, the Bombers would be fine without changing much.
Logged
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3982


« Reply #92 on: January 10, 2020, 06:41:34 PM »

It's not crystal clear to me.  Imports on the roster are limited. We only have 4 DI's. Where are all these fake Canadians coming from? Magic wand?

That's the only place fake Canadians that aren't already starting could come from. I guarantee 3 of them are not going to be starting.


Calling Nevis, Jeffcoat and S. Bryant  starting Canadians?  There are still only 7 real Canadians starting.  Teams don't always have the ability to retain veterans whether Canadian or import.

If Jeffcoat retired and Nevis went elsewhere in free agency then what? We'd have to start 4 real Canadian OL. We already have issues with the ratio losing Kongbo on defense in the old system.

Take our Grey Cup roster as an example and explain how we would have had 10 Nationals starting.



It's clear you are struggling with this.  For the record, I am not crazy about this change either.  But the question of whether it is a good idea is a separate one from a discussion of how it is going to work, based on the rule as written.

I think the part that is giving you trouble is that the new status creates 3 players who are counted as Americans in terms of the overall roster limit (i.e. 20 Americans out of 45), but the same 3 player count as Nationals for purposes of starting ratio.  So they are Americans in one sense, but also Nationals in another sense.  Its a weird way to do it, and part of my original objection to the concept, but it is how they chose to do it.  

So, based on last year's roster, we would have normally had 7 National starters.  Neufeld, Couture, Desjarlais, Harris, Demski, Wolitarsky and Fatboi Thomas.  The new rule requires us to bump it to 10, but allows us to designate 3 veteran Americans (from among the 20 allowed on the roster) to be Fake Canadians for the purpose of reaching the ratio of 10.   Based on last year's roster, we might designate Jeffcoat, Stanley Bryant and Brandon Alexander as Fake Canadians.  

So yes, there are still only 7 real Canadians starting.  But now, the rules create a structure where we have to keep at least 3 veteran Americans as starters and an incentive to keep a few more veterans either as American starters or DIs to maximize roster flexibilty.  If Bryant and Jeffcoat retire or move on in free agency, we either have to have other longer term vets elsewhere on the roster (Drake Nevis, Hardrick, etc.) that we can designate, or we need to go to free agency to sign a 4 year CFL vet.  So you can see how this provides job security for American veteran players in the overall system.

Again, not sure why they mixed it in with National status rather than creating a separate status, but that's what they did.

Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #93 on: January 10, 2020, 06:47:49 PM »

Yup.  Nothing would have changed.  But, as you said, this makes Bryant and Hardrick more valuable than a new American OL replacement, because if they leave, now that Nat Vet position has to shift elsewhere.  I suppose if Alexander stays at safety, the designation could slide there. 

It won't change a lot, in my eyes.  Mainly just in the case of long term injury, or if the injuries on a team start to add up.  One more ball to juggle at times.  But, for the most part, the Bombers would be fine without changing much.

I agree, nothing much is going to change unless teams abuse the rule which is a distinct possibility, thus Ambrosie's threat from the Walters interview.

A potential problem here for the league is this: teams could list a Canadian as a starter and then if that player was injured in the warm-up or first series he could be replaced by a National starter. The possibilities of gamesmanship here by teams "wink-wink" could be difficult for the league to monitor.

"A lot of the discussion revolved around this," said Walters. "Here's a what if: if we were to start Nick Hallett at safety and dress Brandon Alexander as a nationalized Canadian, what if Hallett was to get hurt in the warm up or on the first play of the game" Alexander would then go in and play the whole game. That's the interesting debate where the commissioner weighed in? there could be 'gamesmanship' and he warned us about that and how he would come down like the wrath of God if a team was caught doing that."


This scenario is going to happen, it's going to create a controversy and Ambrosie will have no way of proving it wasn't planned.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:52:13 PM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #94 on: January 10, 2020, 06:49:20 PM »

Yup.  Nothing would have changed.  But, as you said, this makes Bryant and Hardrick more valuable than a new American OL replacement, because if they leave, now that Nat Vet position has to shift elsewhere.  I suppose if Alexander stays at safety, the designation could slide there. 

It won't change a lot, in my eyes.  Mainly just in the case of long term injury, or if the injuries on a team start to add up.  One more ball to juggle at times.  But, for the most part, the Bombers would be fine without changing much.

Making vets like Bryant or Hardrick more valuable is a systemic problem. They are already very valuable and makes them potentially more expensive. There are enough issues without creating more of a top loaded SMS salary issue. I'll use the M. Reilly or BLM examples. The more you pay some players at the top makes it harder to pay those elsewhere on the roster.

For most teams is fairly common for both OT's, all the LB's and 4 of 5 in the secondary 3 of the receivers to be imports.

At best this is intended to benefit long term imports in the CFL. The problem I have with that is the ratio was always set up to benefit Canadians. Those two strategies are at odds.

Long term imports on Bomber roster that qualify that are still potential free agents: Jefferson, Nevis, Taylor, S. Bryant, K. Jones, D. Adams.  Nichols and Collaros as well but I see QB's outside the equation discussed. Rose was already lost.

It won't change a lot but it could for any team that loses many import veterans during an off season.

Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2020, 06:56:22 PM »

It's clear you are struggling with this.  For the record, I am not crazy about this change either.  But the question of whether it is a good idea is a separate one from a discussion of how it is going to work, based on the rule as written.

I think the part that is giving you trouble is that the new status creates 3 players who are counted as Americans in terms of the overall roster limit (i.e. 20 Americans out of 45), but the same 3 player count as Nationals for purposes of starting ratio.  So they are Americans in one sense, but also Nationals in another sense.  Its a weird way to do it, and part of my original objection to the concept, but it is how they chose to do it.  

So, based on last year's roster, we would have normally had 7 National starters.  Neufeld, Couture, Desjarlais, Harris, Demski, Wolitarsky and Fatboi Thomas.  The new rule requires us to bump it to 10, but allows us to designate 3 veteran Americans (from among the 20 allowed on the roster) to be Fake Canadians for the purpose of reaching the ratio of 10.   Based on last year's roster, we might designate Jeffcoat, Stanley Bryant and Brandon Alexander as Fake Canadians.  

So yes, there are still only 7 real Canadians starting.  But now, the rules create a structure where we have to keep at least 3 veteran Americans as starters and an incentive to keep a few more veterans either as American starters or DIs to maximize roster flexibilty.  If Bryant and Jeffcoat retire or move on in free agency, we either have to have other longer term vets elsewhere on the roster (Drake Nevis, Hardrick, etc.) that we can designate, or we need to go to free agency to sign a 4 year CFL vet.  So you can see how this provides job security for American veteran players in the overall system.

Again, not sure why they mixed it in with National status rather than creating a separate status, but that's what they did.



The struggle is seeing the point of this and the fear of what happens if we lose a bunch of import veterans.

I don't see it as a question of whether it's a good idea or a bad idea per se. Yes I do see it as a bad idea.  But I see it as an impossible implementation idea and concern with the fluidity of roster changes during free agency.

I don't see any time where a team ( any team ) has not had many more than a handful of veteran imports with 3+ years on the roster or 4+ in the CFL.

Doesn't this also in theory allow a fake Canadian to be your starting QB and your back up?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:58:08 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2020, 06:57:08 PM »

So are we able to play with less than 7 starting "real" Canadians in any possible scenario?

If so, that's concerning. If not, this is a nothingburger and would be a good way to encourage continuity with American vets.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #97 on: January 10, 2020, 06:57:50 PM »

Making vets like Bryant or Hardrick more valuable is a systemic problem. They are already very valuable and makes them potentially more expensive. There are enough issues without creating more of a top loaded SMS salary issue. I'll use the M. Reilly or BLM examples. The more you pay some players at the top makes it harder to pay those elsewhere on the roster.

For most teams is fairly common for both OT's, all the LB's and 4 of 5 in the secondary 3 of the receivers to be imports.

At best this is intended to benefit long term imports in the CFL. The problem I have with that is the ratio was always set up to benefit Canadians. Those two strategies are at odds.

Long term imports on Bomber roster that qualify that are still potential free agents: Jefferson, Nevis, Taylor, S. Bryant, K. Jones, D. Adams.  Nichols and Collaros as well but I see QB's outside the equation discussed. Rose was already lost.

It won't change a lot but it could for any team that loses many import veterans during an off season.

Too many of them to make them rare, I don't think it will increase their value beyond what it already is, obviously if they've been with a team that long they're already valuable assets and are reasonably well paid. 

These designations will have to be declared on a game by game basis due to the potential of injuries.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7269



« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2020, 06:59:19 PM »

So are we able to play with less than 7 starting "real" Canadians in any possible scenario?

If so, that's concerning. If not, this is a nothingburger and would be a good way to encourage continuity with American vets.

At least not this year....who knows what next year's rule changes will bring.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2020, 07:01:43 PM »

So are we able to play with less than 7 starting "real" Canadians in any possible scenario?

If so, that's concerning. If not, this is a nothingburger and would be a good way to encourage continuity with American vets.

I don't think so. If we have to start 10 and only 3 are fake Canadians it's a wash. Beyond that you'd still be limited to drawing extra starters from the group of DI's due to injury. The other imports would already be starting.

If you have to declare them on game day even more complicated.
Logged

No more excuses.
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332



« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2020, 07:07:51 PM »

Making vets like Bryant or Hardrick more valuable is a systemic problem. They are already very valuable and makes them potentially more expensive. There are enough issues without creating more of a top loaded SMS salary issue. I'll use the M. Reilly or BLM examples. The more you pay some players at the top makes it harder to pay those elsewhere on the roster.

For most teams is fairly common for both OT's, all the LB's and 4 of 5 in the secondary 3 of the receivers to be imports.

At best this is intended to benefit long term imports in the CFL. The problem I have with that is the ratio was always set up to benefit Canadians. Those two strategies are at odds.

Long term imports on Bomber roster that qualify that are still potential free agents: Jefferson, Nevis, Taylor, S. Bryant, K. Jones, D. Adams.  Nichols and Collaros as well but I see QB's outside the equation discussed. Rose was already lost.

It won't change a lot but it could for any team that loses many import veterans during an off season.



It might actually help correct the top-loading of the SMS.  Teams won't be able to promise the Reillys and the Mitchells the moon if they know they need to hold a little of that moon for other vets.  Sure, it doesn't help the brand new guys to the league at all.  But maybe it will give them incentive to stick around.  It's all speculation at this point and I could be completely wrong here.  But I think some of the idea is to bring more importance to guys who aren't star quarterbacks or high-paid Canadians and level that playing field a bit.  It may end up bringing some of the top wages down, just to keep some money for the other guys who've been around a long time, but aren't financially benefiting from being Canadian or a Quarterback.  Hopefully it plays out that way.  I guess time will tell.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2020, 07:08:37 PM »

I don't know what you mean by Nat Nat.

But it is 100%  clear that 3 of the 10 starting Nationals will be Fake Canadians.   It is also clear that the part I quoted allows another eligible American (3 year veteran) to substitute for an injured National (which includes Real Canadians and Fake Canadians).

That does 2 things.  It means your DIs might become more likely to be experienced players rather than guys you are developing.  Secondly, it probably means that other vets in the starting line up who qualify but aren't designated at the start of the game, can help you make ratio in the event of an injury.  In other words the qualifying-but-non-designated American replaces the Fake Canadian in the ratio, and then the DI can come in to "sub" for the spot.  This is a "chain substitution".  I am less certain that this second aspect would be permissible, right now it seems to be a gray area.

Nat Nat is my way of saying Fake Canadian... NATuralized NATional...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2020, 07:18:26 PM »

Doesn't this also in theory allow a fake Canadian to be your starting QB and your back up?
No, because QB's are in their own category outside of the import, NI, Fake NI rules.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2020, 07:18:41 PM »

I just don't get why they can't say that anything to do with the ratio (as it relates to Canadians) is completely unchanged, and they have just introduced a rule whereby you must start 3 designated veterans, which are defined as players who have been with their team for 3 years or 4 years in the league in total. Alternatively, you can sub a designated vet with another National player over and above the 7+ Nats you are already starting.

Or am I completely missing something here?

The wording of the rule change has now lost the CFL a long time fan, as the paw is done being an STH and close follower of the CFL once the 2020 season is over.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 07:23:37 PM by blue_or_die » Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #104 on: January 10, 2020, 07:41:49 PM »

I just don't get why they can't say that anything to do with the ratio (as it relates to Canadians) is completely unchanged, and they have just introduced a rule whereby you must start 3 designated veterans, which are defined as players who have been with their team for 3 years or 4 years in the league in total. Alternatively, you can sub a designated vet with another National player over and above the 7+ Nats you are already starting.

Or am I completely missing something here?

The wording of the rule change has now lost the CFL a long time fan, as the paw is done being an STH and close follower of the CFL once the 2020 season is over.

If you are starting 8 Canadians, then you can use a designated Nat Nat as a replacement for another Nat Nat or a Canadian... likewise 2 if you start 9 Canadians...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2020, 07:44:17 PM »

No, because QB's are in their own category outside of the import, NI, Fake NI rules.

Maybe, maybe not. They changed the rule if an actual Canadian started he'd fall into 1 of 7 starters.

Not convinced this wouldn't hold true for fake Canadians with this other change from 2018.
Logged

No more excuses.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2020, 08:10:13 PM »

If you are starting 8 Canadians, then you can use a designated Nat Nat as a replacement for another Nat Nat or a Canadian... likewise 2 if you start 9 Canadians...

Would you please stop saying "Nat Nat"?
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2020, 08:34:25 PM »

Maybe, maybe not. They changed the rule if an actual Canadian started he'd fall into 1 of 7 starters.

Not convinced this wouldn't hold true for fake Canadians with this other change from 2018.
The first sentence covered inside the special QB's rules. Unless they add wording inside the QB rules, fake NI's won't be included.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2020, 02:31:48 PM »

The first sentence covered inside the special QB's rules. Unless they add wording inside the QB rules, fake NI's won't be included.

See quote below. It doesn't specify an exception for QB's. A QB can be one of the actual 7 Canadian starters. It's somewhat moot since odds are slim of seeing a Canadian starter. Although O'Conner might have started the last Argo game last year?

To say the least the rules are poorly worded and convoluted.


Quote
In the event of a game injury to any of the Clubs? ten (10) National Starters, the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National.

So, we have exceptions for:

1. QB's and what they can do and can't do.

2. Import DI's which limits participation to rotating with other imports. That may not include replacing Nationalized imports? ( not 1005 sure of that ) but that's what it seems to indicate.

3. Global players. Free space on the bingo card at the moment.

4. Nationalized imports.

Clear as mud.
Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2020, 06:05:34 PM »

Would you please stop saying "Nat Nat"?

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Donny C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4138



« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2020, 07:00:14 PM »

It right in the new rule:

The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt.

The only way Streveler could come in is as the punter.



Just draw up some fake punt plays.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2020, 09:40:41 PM »

Just draw up some fake punt plays.

The rule still doesn't say a Nationalized import QB couldn't replace a Canadian QB that started the game and subsequently was injured. He'd still be a QB replacing a QB.
Logged

No more excuses.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #112 on: January 13, 2020, 10:10:46 AM »

said Walters. "Here's a what if: if we were to start Nick Hallett at safety and dress Brandon Alexander as a nationalized Canadian, what if Hallett was to get hurt in the warm up or on the first play of the game" Alexander would then go in and play the whole game. That's the interesting debate where the commissioner weighed in? there could be 'gamesmanship' and he warned us about that and how he would come down like the wrath of God if a team was caught doing that."[/b]

That's the exact scenario I feared.  Glad to see Walters is thinking about it.  I'm still not sure the wording allows what Walters suggests, though.  Wouldn't the 3 FAKENATs already be on the field?  You're allowed 3, and 3 must be onfield, right?  So how can one be on the bench waiting for Hallett to stub his toe?  Unless you're allowed to substitute any VETIMP for a NAT even if they aren't a designated FAKENAT?  If that's the case, then I guarantee you teams will abuse the heck out of this.  But that's not my read on it.

Ambrosie making threats to keep teams honest?  The only thing he can do is change the rule after teams abuse it.  What else is he going to do?  Make them go to bed without dinner?

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?

I already suggested a ton, we have to come up with something to call these guys!  AMERINAT, USANAT, USNAT, NATUSA, IMPNAT, FAKENAT, NON-NON-IMP?  Grin Grin

2. Import DI's which limits participation to rotating with other imports. That may not include replacing Nationalized imports? ( not 1005 sure of that ) but that's what it seems to indicate.

An IMP DI who qualified as FAKENAT might be able to come in to replace a NAT.  That's one of the questions... can any VETIMP replace a (real) NAT or can only one of the 3 designated FAKENATs replace a (real) NAT?

If the answer is the former, then this rule will 100% be abused to get crap starting-7 NATs off the field.

And if Ambrosie says the injury must be legit (like he'll be able to tell...), then sign the most beat-up injury-prone NAT who would otherwise be on the 6-game and start him every game and tell him to take big risks and hard hits.  Let him aggravate whatever his IR problem is and boom he's out and your cheap NAT gets replaced by a VETIMP (not even FAKENAT!).  Heck, the perfect guy would be a LB who is more concussion prone than Collaros and then just have him jump in the air and land on his head on play 1.  Repeat that every week on play 1.

Chris Jones is licking his chops as he eyes his return to the CFL!  Wink Cheesy
Logged

Never go full Rider!
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #113 on: January 13, 2020, 02:21:07 PM »

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?

I already suggested a ton, we have to come up with something to call these guys!  AMERINAT, USANAT, USNAT, NATUSA, IMPNAT, FAKENAT, NON-NON-IMP?  Grin Grin

I think it's simple, and as I've said earlier in this thread, it's the wording of this new rule that is stupid. The term I would use is "designated veteran". This new rule has absolutely nothing to do with fake Canadians other than Canadian players can fill in for the 3 designated veterans starting on the team.

The verbiage makes it sound like these guys are Nats, when really it's just a new designation altogether.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #114 on: January 13, 2020, 03:19:20 PM »

I think it's simple, and as I've said earlier in this thread, it's the wording of this new rule that is stupid. The term I would use is "designated veteran". This new rule has absolutely nothing to do with fake Canadians other than Canadian players can fill in for the 3 designated veterans starting on the team.

The verbiage makes it sound like these guys are Nats, when really it's just a new designation altogether.

The problem comes with the increase to 10 "National Starters" part of the situation.   The fact that you can designate players previously not Nationals to play in a "National Starters" position is the sticking point.  Being able to identify these Designated Nats separately becomes a nomenclature issue.

You could start 10 true Nationals, and designate 3 Int veterans to back up.  These designated veterans imports (DVI's - there's a good name) become Nat compatible in regards to starter/ on field ratio when it comes to substitution.  Which makes us want to use the word Nat or National, even though they are not. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #115 on: January 13, 2020, 04:07:12 PM »

The problem comes with the increase to 10 "National Starters" part of the situation.   The fact that you can designate players previously not Nationals to play in a "National Starters" position is the sticking point.  Being able to identify these Designated Nats separately becomes a nomenclature issue.

You could start 10 true Nationals, and designate 3 Int veterans to back up.  These designated veterans imports (DVI's - there's a good name) become Nat compatible in regards to starter/ on field ratio when it comes to substitution.  Which makes us want to use the word Nat or National, even though they are not. 

But there aren't 10 National starters and so the verbiage should not to relate to this. There are a minimum of 7 Nat starters, which has always been the case. The new rule adds that the team must now also field 3 "DVIs". The only way there are 10 National starters is if the team decides to field 3 EXTRA Nats in lieu of 3 "DVIs", since that is the loophole/alternative to having such players that fit that definition available.

These "3 extra Nats" are placeholders for DVIs, not the other way around.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2020, 06:37:05 AM »

I like DVI.  Except the CFL and football tends to prefer labels or acronyms you can just say out.  "WILL", "MIKE", NAT, IMP, NON-IMPORT, global, etc.

In that sense, if you want to make an acronym, it should something you can just blurt out, preferably in 1 syllable... and since the new CBA spells out Americans as Americans now that we have globals and can't just call them imports anymore, the new term should use "American".

How about DVA or DEVA (DEsignated Veteran American)?  Hehehe... the players are just going love that one  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Shocked Grin

Or, DAV or DAVE (Designated American VEteran)... that fits nicely with WILL, MIKE, SAM.  I like DAV/DAVE better!

When the CFL & players usurp my ideas, I want props!!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Free shawarmas for me!  Wink

While we're at it, gotta shorten "American" to replace IMP.  How about AME's?  (Say it "Amy", or heck just make it AMY.)  Again, a nice name-based one.  Too bad DEVA and AMY have female connotations...  Cheesy again, the players should have fun with it as long as they aren't on the receiving end.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #117 on: January 14, 2020, 03:48:58 PM »

I like DVI.  Except the CFL and football tends to prefer labels or acronyms you can just say out.  "WILL", "MIKE", NAT, IMP, NON-IMPORT, global, etc.

In that sense, if you want to make an acronym, it should something you can just blurt out, preferably in 1 syllable... and since the new CBA spells out Americans as Americans now that we have globals and can't just call them imports anymore, the new term should use "American".

How about DVA or DEVA (DEsignated Veteran American)?  Hehehe... the players are just going love that one  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Shocked Grin

Or, DAV or DAVE (Designated American VEteran)... that fits nicely with WILL, MIKE, SAM.  I like DAV/DAVE better!

When the CFL & players usurp my ideas, I want props!!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Free shawarmas for me!  Wink

While we're at it, gotta shorten "American" to replace IMP.  How about AME's?  (Say it "Amy", or heck just make it AMY.)  Again, a nice name-based one.  Too bad DEVA and AMY have female connotations...  Cheesy again, the players should have fun with it as long as they aren't on the receiving end.


Wouldn't a better single syllable moniker for Americans be Yanks? 

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2020, 10:20:29 AM »

Wouldn't a better single syllable moniker for Americans be Yanks

The southerners won't like it!!  And for some reason now that I think about it, I'd bet >60% of the players come from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  The south just seems to churn out more players and love their football more.  I could be mistaken though!  Maybe 66 can tell us.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 [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!