Blue Bombers Forum
August 08, 2020, 04:50:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  All
  Print  
Author Topic: End of an Era  (Read 5436 times)
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.
Pages: 1 ... 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!