Blue Bombers Forum
August 08, 2020, 05:12:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  All
  Print  
Author Topic: End of an Era  (Read 5443 times)
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.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 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!