Mock Drafts

[ModAdmin]

Here is the first of mock drafts...this one prepared by 3DownNation...

https://3downnation.com/2024/03/13/john-hodges-2024-cfl-mock-draft-1-0/

[kkc60]

I like the first two picks. Two RB/FB in the first three picks for us might be a bit of an overcorrection.

[theaardvark]

Looks like Hodge is listening to a board member...

[CrazyCanuck89]

Check out my mock

https://forums.cfl.ca/t/my-2024-mock-draft/91276/2

[Pete]

1   edm   Deblanco  lb
2   ottawa   Mardner     wr
3   sask   manu     ol
4   cal   Brubacher dl
5   tor   mital     wr
6   ham   straker   lb
7   bc   Busby     wr
8   wpg   Hergol     ol
9   mtrl   Labrosse  db
         
10     edm   Hergott     dl
11   ottawa   Dumoulin-Duguay    ol
12   sask   Okopoko     dl
13   cal   Una     ol
14   cal   Blackburn db
15   bc   Wallace   ol
16   ham   Canton-arku lb    
17   wpg   Chris-Ike rb
18   edm   Sambu     dl
19   bc   Herzog     rb
20   wpg    Roane    dl

[CrazyCanuck89]

1   edm   Deblanco  lb
2   ottawa   Mardner     wr
3   sask   manu     ol
4   cal   Brubacher dl
5   tor   mital     wr
6   ham   straker   lb
7   bc   Busby     wr
8   wpg   Hergol     ol
9   mtrl   Labrosse  db
         
10     edm   Hergott     dl
11   ottawa   Dumoulin-Duguay    ol
12   sask   Okopoko     dl
13   cal   Una     ol
14   cal   Blackburn db
15   bc   Wallace   ol
16   ham   Canton-arku lb    
17   wpg   Chris-Ike rb
18   edm   Sambu     dl
19   bc   Herzog     rb
20   wpg    Roane    dl

The first round you hit needs for each team.  I think Edmonton can go BPA, there Canadians weren't the problem.

[dd]

I don't get why they say we have a glaring need at fullback. I didn't think anyone had a glaring need for a fullback. Teams generally bring in an extra O lineman at TE and engage the defense at the line. FB is an old outdated position

[CrazyCanuck89]

I don't get why they say we have a glaring need at fullback. I didn't think anyone had a glaring need for a fullback. Teams generally bring in an extra O lineman at TE and engage the defense at the line. FB is an old outdated position

It's not really outdated, the position itself has evolved to a tightend/fullback.

[Blue In BC]

Speaking of drafts, the Global draft is only 2 rounds this year. Any thoughts on choices for these players?

We've only got 1 remaining from each of the last 2 global drafts.

[LXTSN]

I don't get why they say we have a glaring need at fullback. I didn't think anyone had a glaring need for a fullback. Teams generally bring in an extra O lineman at TE and engage the defense at the line. FB is an old outdated position

Yeah it's a little outdated. The game is faster and QB's can throw farther and that stretches out the field a lot.
With that said, they can be very effective if you have a good one. If you can use a FB rather than a 7th OL, you can have another threat on the field. I don't think we are throwing the ball to Eli any time soon.
I would love to see a FB that actually gets the goal line touches. I feel we haven't seen one of those in a while. There is a great saying about fullbacks, "If you need them to get you 1 yard, they will get you 3. If you need them to get you 5 yards, they will get you 3."

[theaardvark]

FB is a position that, in certain instances, has a place.

Here's something I haven't seen mentioned.

Streveler.

He is literally a FB, and with 2 QB's on the field allowed, we have a FB who has far more dimensionality than any NAT FB ever. 

So lets drop the "We need to draft a FB" discussion, OK?

our needs OLine pipeline, then BPA.  If BPA nets is a LB/ST guy , a depth WR for the PR and DB/FS/SAM backup with ST capabilities (including returning), we will be fine.  We have NATS at so many positions, BPA will be good anywhere.  Maybe a second or third Oline, or a flyer pick on someone who has NFL opportunities that eventually may come north.

[Pete]

FB is a position that, in certain instances, has a place.

Here's something I haven't seen mentioned.

Streveler.

He is literally a FB, and with 2 QB's on the field allowed, we have a FB who has far more dimensionality than any NAT FB ever. 

So lets drop the "We need to draft a FB" discussion, OK?

our needs OLine pipeline, then BPA.  If BPA nets is a LB/ST guy , a depth WR for the PR and DB/FS/SAM backup with ST capabilities (including returning), we will be fine.  We have NATS at so many positions, BPA will be good anywhere.  Maybe a second or third Oline, or a flyer pick on someone who has NFL opportunities that eventually may come north.

I've advocated for a while that what makes the most sense for our team is a tight end. Can block when needed while still maintaining a offensive threat. One pick that might be available is Kevens Clercius at 217 lbs  (Mital would be the best choice but he will be unavailable by the time we pick). Another wr with size who had impressive combine numbers is ANTOINE, Frederik at 213 lbs  4.51 40 speed and 21 bench reps. Hladik is another who might surprise as a receiver ( his brother Ben was also undervalued not being drafted until the third round.)

[Pigskin]

I am not sold on the FB. We had Burtenshaw here for 2 years and I don't think he touched the ball. He also wasn't used much for blocking. A TE is a interesting idea. A big body player that could be used in a few different scenarios.

[TecnoGenius]

Yeah it's a little outdated. The game is faster and QB's can throw farther and that stretches out the field a lot.
With that said, they can be very effective if you have a good one. If you can use a FB rather than a 7th OL, you can have another threat on the field. I don't think we are throwing the ball to Eli any time soon.
I would love to see a FB that actually gets the goal line touches. I feel we haven't seen one of those in a while. There is a great saying about fullbacks, "If you need them to get you 1 yard, they will get you 3. If you need them to get you 5 yards, they will get you 3."

I'm in the "need a FB/TE" camp.  Whilst not important for many teams, the fact that MOS/Buck wasted a DI spot on a FB/TE for like half the season should tell you how important that role is to our O.

On my season rewatch it's pretty clear the early loss to BC sparked a massive rethink and desire to better protect Zach.  That's when we started going heavy a whack ton.  And we kept doing it all season and post-season.  That meant 6 and 7 OL set, or 6 + Jackson.  (Did we ever see 7 + Jackson?)

Having that extra guy be a FB/TE does make D's defend the spot, since they often are the forgotten sneak-out guy for a short pass.  From memory we targeted Jackson 3 times?

But don't count out Eli for a target.  In his first year he'd go 7 yards downfield when he had no one to block and turn and put his hands up to catch a pass.  It was my favorite thing ever and I'm dying to see them chuck to him just once!  If he has good hands, why not?

I think we really missed Miller and that's why we wasted that DI... because none of our NATs could do it.  However, you'd think FA for a young-ish, has-promise TE/FB could also yield something, and for cheap?  (How did we get Miller?)  So waste a high DP or maybe wait another year for a FA?

I'm thinking we may want 2 DP OL, and certainly 1.  Whether that leaves room for a TE/FB... I hope so.  BPA: we don't need just a rando player, we need certain positions, unless we just want to use BPA as trade bait.  If BOO is gone then we're super short at NAT WR backup, especially seeing how many NAT WR/RB we start...

[Pigskin]

I would say with BOO signing with Hamilton we currently only have Murphy as a backup Canadian WR. So, I would think we have a WR fairly high on our shopping list for the draft.

[theaardvark]

I would say with BOO signing with Hamilton we currently only have Murphy as a backup Canadian WR. So, I would think we have a WR fairly high on our shopping list for the draft.

Starting 8 or even 9 NATS reduces the "need" for a backup NAT WR.  Not saying we don't *need* one in the draft, I'd be surprised if one of our first 3 picks isn't a WR...

[Jesse]

We do not need any position in the draft.

We need to identify players that have potential to become impact starters. That's it.

[blue_or_die]

We do not need any position in the draft.

We need to identify players that have potential to become impact starters. That's it.

That, as well as a DT!

[dd]

When the fullbacks name is Mike Sellers, I m all for it, but these smaller runningback/fullback types, I just don't see a need for them. If you want someone to lead block for your RB, get your tight end to chip off the DE and lead the way, plus be a bonafide pass recieving threat. But bigg Mike was awesome to watch but he's the exception not the rule in the CFL

[CrazyCanuck89]

We do not need any position in the draft.

We need to identify players that have potential to become impact starters. That's it.

You guys need almost every position outside of defensive back.

Is Bennett the answer or do you grab another defensive end.  Kongbo wasn't good last year in Hamilton.

How much depth do you have at Linebacker?  I'm guessing Kelly backs up Kramdi, like last year.

Eli and Dobson will be fighting for the LG spot, the loser will be the sixth Olinemen.  Who will be the seventh?

[theaardvark]

You guys need almost every position outside of defensive back.

Is Bennett the answer or do you grab another defensive end.  Kongbo wasn't good last year in Hamilton.

How much depth do you have at Linebacker?  I'm guessing Kelly backs up Kramdi, like last year.

Eli and Dobson will be fighting for the LG spot, the loser will be the sixth Olinemen.  Who will be the seventh?

So, just like every year...

We will take an Oline with the first pick, and another when an OL is BPA.  We will have players in the pipeline, like always.

We will draft a DB (when one is BPA) to back up Ford.

With our NAT starting depth, the rest of the picks should be non position related, BPA... we will have them for 2-3 years to develop and assess if they make it out of TC.  If they develop well, maybe they adjust where our NATs start...

[LXTSN]

I'm in the "need a FB/TE" camp.  Whilst not important for many teams, the fact that MOS/Buck wasted a DI spot on a FB/TE for like half the season should tell you how important that role is to our O.

On my season rewatch it's pretty clear the early loss to BC sparked a massive rethink and desire to better protect Zach.  That's when we started going heavy a whack ton.  And we kept doing it all season and post-season.  That meant 6 and 7 OL set, or 6 + Jackson.  (Did we ever see 7 + Jackson?)

Having that extra guy be a FB/TE does make D's defend the spot, since they often are the forgotten sneak-out guy for a short pass.  From memory we targeted Jackson 3 times?

But don't count out Eli for a target.  In his first year he'd go 7 yards downfield when he had no one to block and turn and put his hands up to catch a pass.  It was my favorite thing ever and I'm dying to see them chuck to him just once!  If he has good hands, why not?

I think we really missed Miller and that's why we wasted that DI... because none of our NATs could do it.  However, you'd think FA for a young-ish, has-promise TE/FB could also yield something, and for cheap?  (How did we get Miller?)  So waste a high DP or maybe wait another year for a FA?

I'm thinking we may want 2 DP OL, and certainly 1.  Whether that leaves room for a TE/FB... I hope so.  BPA: we don't need just a rando player, we need certain positions, unless we just want to use BPA as trade bait.  If BOO is gone then we're super short at NAT WR backup, especially seeing how many NAT WR/RB we start...

There is nothing I would love more than to see Eli catching passes lol
However, my guess is he doesn't have the catching ability and agility equal to a good FB/TE.

[TecnoGenius]

Starting 8 or even 9 NATS reduces the "need" for a backup NAT WR.  Not saying we don't *need* one in the draft, I'd be surprised if one of our first 3 picks isn't a WR...

It's not the starting ratio that causes the need for a backup WR, it's to have enough injury backups at WR/RB.

"A Designated American (DA) is a non-Starting American player who may play on all special teams.  During regular offensive or defensive possessions, he may only replace an American player on the field."

Which means if a NAT leaves the field, he can only be replaced by another NAT, not a DA.  (We can argue how this changes with a non-DA extra-IMP due to 8-9 starting NATs, but my read is NAT can only be replaced by NAT (or "NA" FAKENAT in 2023+ and only *if* it's an injury situation).

Back to the point, since we start 3 NAT at WR/RB, we surely need to have 2 (or more) WR/RB-type NAT players dressed as backup.  One more a RB than WR: Johnny.  One more a WR than RB, but could be a McCrae type who can do both (ya, he was an IMP, but his type is perfect in this example).

BOO was that guy.  He's gonno, and whoever is next man up (you guys mentioned Murphy) has to be at least around BOO level (is he??), otherwise we need to start eyeing WR DP.

If both Brady and Woli go down in the same game, things will suck bad if we field Johnny + a not-ready or weak young'n NAT WR.

[TecnoGenius]

We do not need any position in the draft.

Some think that.  Others think otherwise.  The great thing is we'll know who's right on draft night.  If we go OL FB OL WR then the "draft positions" people won.  If we do DB DE WR LB then you'll be right!

How do you feel KW has approached it in the past?  Positions or BPA?  The past is 100% a predictor of KW future performance, if there's one thing we've learned about The Can Mafia over the years.

[TecnoGenius]

When the fullbacks name is Mike Sellers, I m all for it, but these smaller runningback/fullback types, I just don't see a need for them.

But wasn't Mike Miller basically that?  He's not a super tall or beefy guy.  And he was pretty useful at the FB role.  I'm not sure even-beefier (but also short) Jackson was any better, and he wasted a DI spot to boot.

[TecnoGenius]

There is nothing I would love more than to see Eli catching passes lol
However, my guess is he doesn't have the catching ability and agility equal to a good FB/TE.

Ya, but if he gets any momentum going on YAC, it'll be fun to watch him bulldoze DBs.  The smart ones will just go for the leg tackle.

I would throw one to him early in the season just to make LBs have to pause a second to think about defending it.  Don't have to throw him one the rest of the season 

[ModAdmin]

Some think that.  Others think otherwise.  The great thing is we'll know who's right on draft night.  If we go OL FB OL WR then the "draft positions" people won.  If we do DB DE WR LB then you'll be right!

How do you feel KW has approached it in the past?  Positions or BPA?  The past is 100% a predictor of KW future performance, if there's one thing we've learned about The Can Mafia over the years.

There are times when Walters has focused on positions, i.e., Olinemen and times when he focuses on the BPA.  This year we lost JH51 so in the early rounds, my guess is we select Olinemen.  There is not enough knowledge about the signed Olinemen to say we are set at that position.

[Doublezero]

FB is a position that, in certain instances, has a place.

Here's something I haven't seen mentioned.

Streveler.

He is literally a FB, and with 2 QB's on the field allowed, we have a FB who has far more dimensionality than any NAT FB ever. 

So lets drop the "We need to draft a FB" discussion, OK?

our needs OLine pipeline, then BPA.  If BPA nets is a LB/ST guy , a depth WR for the PR and DB/FS/SAM backup with ST capabilities (including returning), we will be fine.  We have NATS at so many positions, BPA will be good anywhere.  Maybe a second or third Oline, or a flyer pick on someone who has NFL opportunities that eventually may come north.

A guy with the right body build and football smarts can play both LB and FB. For example, Wade Miller was drafted as a linebacker (37th pick) in 1995 and started out on defence. Then he switched to FB and was pretty effective as a blocker, occasional short yardage punch and amazing special teams ace.

[Pete]

It seems as though when Walters is picking in the 8 or 9 spot, the first pick is in an area of need, because by the time your second round pick arrives the chances of getting a player good enough to fill that need is greatly diminished.  if you have a pick on the top 5 you likely take the best player, cause even at the 10-13th pic you can probably still fill the need.
This year it appears that our biggest need is the oline due to Grey departure, Neufelds age, and Dobson on the last year of a contract.
What I would like to see us do is extend more contracts like other teams seem to do. Dobson and Holm would be a good start.

[ModAdmin]

It seems as though when Walters is picking in the 8 or 9 spot, the first pick is in an area of need, because by the time your second round pick arrives the chances of getting a player good enough to fill that need is greatly diminished.  if you have a pick on the top 5 you likely take the best player, cause even at the 10-13th pic you can probably still fill the need.
This year it appears that our biggest need is the oline due to Grey departure, Neufelds age, and Dobson on the last year of a contract.
What I would like to see us do is extend more contracts like other teams seem to do. Dobson and Holm would be a good start.

Oline for sure.  You are right about Neufeld and Grey.  Don't forget Hardrick is also gone and Bryant is at an age when he could pull the pin anytime  as well.  The Oline is definitely a priority.

[TecnoGenius]

There is not enough knowledge about the signed Olinemen to say we are set at that position.

You can say that again.  However, he's always pulled off an OL miracle in the past, so odds say he can do it again.  We do have a decent amount of ammo in the hopper in terms of dev guys, new scouting finds, and the upcoming draft.

But we are WPG and our QB is Zach and Zach requires a lot more protection that almost every other QB (maybe on par with T.Harris?) and has become one of the least mobile (in terms of running past the LoS).  By design and necessity we must have a top-3 OL, if not top-1.

Pete's right: we could sure use better OL retention than the 1-2 OL we lose every season to retirement and FA.  I don't see any other team losing so many to attrition... it's usually the opposite: where they are actively trying to get rid of guys.

[Blue In BC]

Seems to be a good group of talented OL in the 1st 10 -20 spots. That would suggest we draft one with our 1st pick.

No idea what we do with our next 3 picks but good chance we get another good prospect in that group.

Bigger question is do we / can we trade up within the next 3 picks? If we do does that happen before we get to the 2nd pick or before the draft all together?

[Pigskin]

We have 3 picks in the first 2 rounds. #8, 17 and 20. With the draft so deep in OLs, I don't think we need to. We also have picks 28,37, 40 and 46 in the middle rounds. Could take a flyer on a player heading to the NFL for a couple of years.

[Blue In BC]

We have 3 picks in the first 2 rounds. #8, 17 and 20. With the draft so deep in OLs, I don't think we need to. We also have picks 28,37, 40 and 46 in the middle rounds. Could take a flyer on a player heading to the NFL for a couple of years.

In theory the chance of getting a better player is at # 8 than at # 17 or later. I'm of the opinion I'd like to see us moving up in our 2 selections. How we do that and at what cost is the question. Picks in the 2nd round are so close together I wouldn't be opposed to trading one.

I think I mentioned trading # 8 and # 17 to possibly moving up in the top 4 picks. Now that's just a rhetorical statement since I haven't even looked to see which teams have those picks or whether a 2 for 1 would be of value.

A team that is stacked with Canadians might have less interest in high 1st round picks and be looking at more development guys etc.

[CrazyCanuck89]

In theory the chance of getting a better player is at # 8 than at # 17 or later. I'm of the opinion I'd like to see us moving up in our 2 selections. How we do that and at what cost is the question. Picks in the 2nd round are so close together I wouldn't be opposed to trading one.

I think I mentioned trading # 8 and # 17 to possibly moving up in the top 4 picks. Now that's just a rhetorical statement since I haven't even looked to see which teams have those picks or whether a 2 for 1 would be of value.

A team that is stacked with Canadians might have less interest in high 1st round picks and be looking at more development guys etc.

Yes and no.  Drafting isn't an exact science. We've seen first round busts and seventh round starters.

[Pete]

Yes and no.  Drafting isn't an exact science. We've seen first round busts and seventh round starters.

if you look at the last 4 drafts there are extremely few that are starters that were drafted beyond even the 2nd round.
As some have noted when they've looked at some of our picks that haven't turned out, there was slim pickings of players that would have been any better.

[theaardvark]

It's not the starting ratio that causes the need for a backup WR, it's to have enough injury backups at WR/RB.

"A Designated American (DA) is a non-Starting American player who may play on all special teams.  During regular offensive or defensive possessions, he may only replace an American player on the field."

Which means if a NAT leaves the field, he can only be replaced by another NAT, not a DA.  (We can argue how this changes with a non-DA extra-IMP due to 8-9 starting NATs, but my read is NAT can only be replaced by NAT (or "NA" FAKENAT in 2023+ and only *if* it's an injury situation).

Back to the point, since we start 3 NAT at WR/RB, we surely need to have 2 (or more) WR/RB-type NAT players dressed as backup.  One more a RB than WR: Johnny.  One more a WR than RB, but could be a McCrae type who can do both (ya, he was an IMP, but his type is perfect in this example).

BOO was that guy.  He's gonno, and whoever is next man up (you guys mentioned Murphy) has to be at least around BOO level (is he??), otherwise we need to start eyeing WR DP.

If both Brady and Woli go down in the same game, things will suck bad if we field Johnny + a not-ready or weak young'n NAT WR.

That rule doers not apply if you are starting more than the required 7 NATS. 

If you specify that you are starting 5 Nats on O and 2 on D, and you actually start 6 NATs on O and one NAT goes down, you can bring in a DA, because you are still playing 5 NATs on O. 

3 OL, 2 WR and an RB is 6, if one of the WR goes down, you can put in a DA, and still meet the required 5 NATs on O.

[Blue In BC]

Yes and no.  Drafting isn't an exact science. We've seen first round busts and seventh round starters.

Of course that's true but the odds are a bit better picking in the 1st couple of rounds. Lots of opinions in pre draft rankings besides those of any given team. It will depend on which specific players the team has in their wish list and whether they feel it's in their interest to move up etc. Obviously that takes a willing team to make such a trade. Like any trade, that doesn't always work out as a win win.

[CrazyCanuck89]

if you look at the last 4 drafts there are extremely few that are starters that were drafted beyond even the 2nd round.
As some have noted when they've looked at some of our picks that haven't turned out, there was slim pickings of players that would have been any better.

Starters beyond the first round

Bombers:
Kramdi SLB
Eli LG (yes he was drafted earlier than 2020)
Ford CB (maybe)
Olivera RB
Wolitarsky WR
Lawson DT


Ti-Cats:
Katsantonis S
Smith WR
Hakunavannu WR(drafted by the Stamps in round 5)

Stamps:
Bell RT
Barnes SB
Raynham (Maybe,now that Wiggans is gone)


Argos
Metchie S
Smith DE
Adeleke DHB (maybe)

Redblacks
Hogan-Saidon C
Addae DHB (Maybe)
Onyeka DE (Maybe)

Roughriders
Ferland LG
Ford or Danke S (Maybe)
Schaffer-Baker WR
Lenius SB (Maybe)

Allouettes
Lestage LG
Lawrence C
Dequoy S
Antwi RB

Lions
Hladik MLB
Knevel LG
Couture C
Greene S (Maybe)

Elks
Curtis DE (Maybe)
Pelley DT (Maybe)
Cobb WR (Maybe)
Boyko RT
Grohovak LG (Maybe)

Don't forget most teams roate 7-8 defensive linemen.  Runningback picked later will also get reps.

The Maybes are where teams might play a Canadian, depending how camp works out.

[Pete]

Of these 21 have been actual starters and maybe 10 have been drafted after the 2nd round.
Over the last 4 years 216 players have been selected in rds 3-8
Not great odds

[theaardvark]

Later round picks that translate into starters may also be players that may never come to the CFL, but are drafted "just in case".

[Blue In BC]

Starters beyond the first round

Bombers:
Kramdi SLB
Eli LG (yes he was drafted earlier than 2020)
Ford CB (maybe)
Olivera RB
Wolitarsky WR
Lawson DT


Ti-Cats:
Katsantonis S
Smith WR
Hakunavannu WR(drafted by the Stamps in round 5)

Stamps:
Bell RT
Barnes SB
Raynham (Maybe,now that Wiggans is gone)


Argos
Metchie S
Smith DE
Adeleke DHB (maybe)

Redblacks
Hogan-Saidon C
Addae DHB (Maybe)
Onyeka DE (Maybe)

Roughriders
Ferland LG
Ford or Danke S (Maybe)
Schaffer-Baker WR
Lenius SB (Maybe)

Allouettes
Lestage LG
Lawrence C
Dequoy S
Antwi RB

Lions
Hladik MLB
Knevel LG
Couture C
Greene S (Maybe)

Elks
Curtis DE (Maybe)
Pelley DT (Maybe)
Cobb WR (Maybe)
Boyko RT
Grohovak LG (Maybe)

Don't forget most teams roate 7-8 defensive linemen.  Runningback picked later will also get reps.

The Maybes are where teams might play a Canadian, depending how camp works out.

Teams need 7 Canadian starters. You don't sustain that by only 1st round picks. Obviously players picked in later rounds also become starters.

The question is that because they actually earned that designation or were forced to start in order to have 7 starters.

Some on those on your list became very good starters. Others not so much.

[ModAdmin]

Report from the Combine as we head into the CFL Draft...

https://www.bluebombers.com/2024/03/24/theres-a-good-deep-group-of-football-players/

[Pete]

I don't know why we don't extend some of our nationals so as to help clarify what our needs are going into the draft. For example Dobson, if we have him signed for 2 more years that means we really only need to draft one oline, or Ford which would reduce our db needs
It beats waiting til the last minute when you're competing on free agency.
Sask just extended Emilus which is a great move for them.(and also reduces the inseason chatter about it)

[Blue In BC]

I don't know why we don't extend some of our nationals so as to help clarify what our needs are going into the draft. For example Dobson, if we have him signed for 2 more years that means we really only need to draft one oline, or Jones which would reduce our db needs
It beats waiting til the last minute when you're competing on free agency.
Sask just extended Emilus which is a great move for them.(and also reduces the inseason chatter about it)

Lots of reasons potentially. SMS available at the moment. A player that is willing to extend or re-sign is always up for a question.

If Dobson wins a starting spot on the OL or plays a significant time this year and does well, his value could go up heading to free agency etc.

We may draft a better candidate on an ELC. Rosters are fluid and choices are made across the spectrum.

You said Jones. Did you mean Ford? He may opt for another NFL shot next off season. He decide to move to Edmonton  and play with his brother.

[Pete]

Lots of reasons potentially. SMS available at the moment. A player that is willing to extend or re-sign is always up for a question.

If Dobson wins a starting spot on the OL or plays a significant time this year and does well, his value could go up heading to free agency etc.

We may draft a better candidate on an ELC. Rosters are fluid and choices are made across the spectrum.

You said Jones. Did you mean Ford? He may opt for another NFL shot next off season. He decide to move to Edmonton  and play with his brother.

yep..(fixed it, thanks). with ford all the more reason to see where he stands... i wonder if there's  a possibility we could trade him to the elks now? It might help them in resigning tre ford.
Maybe for their number 1 pick and throw in one of our 2nd round pics.
As far as resigning Dobson it would likely be a lot cheaper than if we wait and he has a great year with the opportunity now Grey is gone

[TecnoGenius]

That rule doers not apply if you are starting more than the required 7 NATS. 

If you specify that you are starting 5 Nats on O and 2 on D, and you actually start 6 NATs on O and one NAT goes down, you can bring in a DA, because you are still playing 5 NATs on O. 

We all think that, and it stands to reason, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it in writing in a CFL rulebook.  Does anyone have the ratio rulebook link handy again?  Ratio stuff is not in the main rulebook... which I find... odd.

The latest ratio update dictating the DNA/DNS rules clearly states a DA (nee DI) can only ever sub in for an IMP.  (Special DNA/DNS/DA rules notwithstanding.)

[Blue In BC]

yep..(fixed it, thanks). with ford all the more reason to see where he stands... i wonder if there's  a possibility we could trade him to the elks now? It might help them in resigning tre ford.
Maybe for their number 1 pick and throw in one of our 2nd round pics.
As far as resigning Dobson it would likely be a lot cheaper than if we wait and he has a great year with the opportunity now Grey is gone

The team may have an idea where Ford stands on extending or re-signing for 2025. They may also have an idea whether he has a legit chance of starting in 2024.

I wouldn't rule out the trade you suggested but it depends on a bunch of variables.

A starting Canadian DB is like a starting Canadian RB. It's a huge bonus but falls into more of an exception than the rule.

OTOH, starting Canadian OL are a necessity. Will Neufeld or Dobson be Bombers in 2025? Age and SMS hits make that uncertain.

I get that re-signing Dobson would be less expensive re-signing him now. Dobson knows that too. For what it's worth he was born in Ottawa. I'd be happy if we do re-sign him early.

So IMO we need to have success in the 2024 draft regarding an OL. Does that mean trying to move up by means of a trade? IDK. We have more Canadian DB's coming to camp than usual. Josh Hallett, Kelly, MacDougall, McCarthy and Ford.

We aren't really sure how good any of them are besides Ford. We expect Nick Hallett and Kramdi to be locks to make the AR.  Ford should be a lock to at least make the AR. Hard to say how many of the other group fill out the roster.

How much interest do the Bombers have in the 1st pick and what would they give up to get it. Interesting question but I doubt it happens. I see a better chance that we move up to # 3 - # 5 for example, but that's just speculation on my part.

[ModAdmin]

Marshall Ferguson's Mock Draft projections...

https://www.cfl.ca/2024/04/03/mock-draft-1-0-what-will-the-elks-do-at-1st-overall/?lid=6169d3pv868w&utm_cta=feature-image&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Field+Pass+Newsletter+-+April+11+2024&utm_brazeid=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_content=&tf_u%5Bcfl_braze_id%5D=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_instance=cfl

[Pigskin]

Marshall Ferguson's Mock Draft projections...

https://www.cfl.ca/2024/04/03/mock-draft-1-0-what-will-the-elks-do-at-1st-overall/?lid=6169d3pv868w&utm_cta=feature-image&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Field+Pass+Newsletter+-+April+11+2024&utm_brazeid=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_content=&tf_u%5Bcfl_braze_id%5D=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_instance=cfl

For the most part I like what Marshall is thinking. But, I am not sure I would go with with 2 DLs in our first 4 picks.

[theaardvark]

What is really humorous is that this is the CFL.  And these are NAT players.  As compared to the likes of the NBA, the NFL or even the NHL, these potential draft picks are rather unknown quantities.  And the teams picking are utilizing a handful of scouts, most of whom have never seen the majority of these players live.

So, doing a mock draft, even of the first round, is purely conjecture and for entertainment purposes only.

Glancing at the mock drafts out there, where the NHL/NFL and NBA have a consensus group of players for the first round, with the top few players usually written in stone, its hard to find 2 CFL mocks that have any commonality in the first round.

But that's the CFL offseason for ya.

Good on the people that take the time and effort to put together a mock for our entertainment.  Who actually go through some of the scouting, and the combines. 

I'd say, making a perfect CFL round 1 mock is probably harder than a perfect first round in March Madness. 

But people still put together brackets in March...

[Blue In BC]

The conversations are always interesting. We could use players just about anywhere from a position point of view. OL, DL and receiver in particular. I don't particularly see us drafting a DB or LB, but you can never say never.

Part of the equation is what does management think about a few of our back ups. IDK and we don't know so that's the question to start.

The draft seems top heavy with OL and we could use more depth for the future. So I predict on that basis we choose an OL with our 1st choice. After that I have no idea. Just looking forward to how this works out.

[TecnoGenius]

For the most part I like what Marshall is thinking. But, I am not sure I would go with with 2 DLs in our first 4 picks.

But this mock does correspond somewhat to our theories here, at least the "positional need" theories.

1 OL is the bare minimum we need after losing 1 NAT / 1 IMP OL.  We could make it work if we feel secure in both our current talent level and our retention program for next FA.  But 2 OL wouldn't be a surprise either.

1 WR also makes sense as we have just who-dat Murphy to backup both Demski & Woli, eh?

2 DL... well, what else do we want?  If we have no clue as to the empty-spot DT plan and DE plan... hedge our bets by having some decent DL DP in house on 2-year ELC?  Could be the next Fatboi or Kongbo in there.

[Blue In BC]

But this mock does correspond somewhat to our theories here, at least the "positional need" theories.

1 OL is the bare minimum we need after losing 1 NAT / 1 IMP OL.  We could make it work if we feel secure in both our current talent level and our retention program for next FA.  But 2 OL wouldn't be a surprise either.

1 WR also makes sense as we have just who-dat Murphy to backup both Demski & Woli, eh?

2 DL... well, what else do we want?  If we have no clue as to the empty-spot DT plan and DE plan... hedge our bets by having some decent DL DP in house on 2-year ELC?  Could be the next Fatboi or Kongbo in there.

I agree. The fly in the ointment is whether we are secure in our current talent and retention for the future. That's going to be the same every year. As I mentioned earlier, we've lost 23 players that were either on the AR or PR. I don't find that particularly unusual for any team.

I think Eli and Dobson can be quality players but I'm not clear on when their contracts expire. On defence it's not unreasonable to think players like Thomas, Gauthier and Benson might be in their last season.

It's a balanced decision as to developing players and having enough SMS left to go out and " buy " a player in free agency to fill in the necessities.

Bombers have managed to succeed on achieving that balance.

[Pigskin]

I think we probably take OL Hergel at #8. REC, Duncan-Busby at #17, but then I would like to see the Bombers take MLB 6'3" 240, Nick Wiebe at #20.

[Pete]

Hergel will probably get a good look in the nfl, Duncan Busby might be a good choice at 8, no way he lasts til 17th. Id like to see us get one of Sambu/Hergott/Brubacher at 18 then either Clerius (WR) or another ol at 20

[dizzycamper]

Hergel will probably get a good look in the nfl, Duncan Busby might be a good choice at 8, no way he lasts til 17th. Id like to see us get one of Sambu/Hergott/Brubacher at 18 then either Clerius (WR) or another ol at 20

Believe we should go for one of the edge guys @ 8 (Brubacher, Hergott or Okpoko), then O-Line @ 17 (roster guy for 2024) and a receiver @ 20 (there will be some good receivers here i.e. his father was a running back for us at one time or the other Laval receiver).

[theaardvark]

I think that all things being equal, we need to draft at positions we already start a NAT at.  Keeping continuity of NAT talent at those positions lets us develop the best INT players at other positions.

But if there is a glaringly superior player available, I don't care his position or NFL opportunities, draft him.  I think this is more likely deeper in teh draft as guys with NFL opportunities are passed over, and with the number of starting NATs we already have, and the number of picks we have, we can invest in these flyers.

I don't want to use 8 and 17 as flyers, I'd like an OL, a WR and/or a DL at those spots.  But after that, game on.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

What is really humorous is that this is the CFL.  And these are NAT players.  As compared to the likes of the NBA, the NFL or even the NHL, these potential draft picks are rather unknown quantities.  And the teams picking are utilizing a handful of scouts, most of whom have never seen the majority of these players live.

So, doing a mock draft, even of the first round, is purely conjecture and for entertainment purposes only.

Glancing at the mock drafts out there, where the NHL/NFL and NBA have a consensus group of players for the first round, with the top few players usually written in stone, its hard to find 2 CFL mocks that have any commonality in the first round.

But that's the CFL offseason for ya.

Good on the people that take the time and effort to put together a mock for our entertainment.  Who actually go through some of the scouting, and the combines. 

I'd say, making a perfect CFL round 1 mock is probably harder than a perfect first round in March Madness. 

But people still put together brackets in March...

Don't have an opinion on players I haven't seen other than a few that showed up at the CFL Combine, but a few holdover draft picks that I thought showed good potential from last years TC and pre-season games.

Max Charbonneau LB 6'-3" 225 lbs. Could be the next Shayne Gauthier.

Bret MacDougall DB 6'-2" 205 lbs.  Good nose for the ball, might backup Kramdi.

Jake Kelly DB 5'-11" 179 lbs.  Bit light but might stick on ST.

Jeremy Murphy WR 6'-1" 191 lbs. Adequate backup to replace BOLO.

Tanner Schmekel DT 6'-1" 291 lbs. Didn't show much last season but we'll see what he's learned playing behind Jake and Lawson, in the same boat as Anthony Bennett, time to "show me".

Kind of surprised they haven't invited Cole Adamson from the U of M back, 6'-5" 265 lbs. he was switched over from DL to OL during last year's TC, that could be an indication of lack of mobility or technique.  With that size you'd think they'd want to take another look at him, like Geoff Gray he's also an engineering grad.

[dizzycamper]

Don't have an opinion on players I haven't seen other than a few that showed up at the CFL Combine, but a few holdover draft picks that I thought showed good potential from last years TC and pre-season games.

Max Charbonneau LB 6'-3" 225 lbs. Could be the next Shayne Gauthier.

Bret MacDougall DB 6'-2" 205 lbs.  Good nose for the ball, might backup Kramdi.

Jake Kelly DB 5'-11" 179 lbs.  Bit light but might stick on ST.

Jeremy Murphy WR 6'-1" 191 lbs. Adequate backup to replace BOLO.

Tanner Schmekel DT 6'-1" 291 lbs. Didn't show much last season but we'll see what he's learned playing behind Jake and Lawson, in the same boat as Anthony Bennett, time to "show me".

Kind of surprised they haven't invited Cole Adamson from the U of M back, 6'-5" 265 lbs. he was switched over from DL to OL during last year's TC, that could be an indication of lack of mobility or technique.  With that size you'd think they'd want to take another look at him, like Geoff Gray he's also an engineering grad.

Max Charbonneau after BB training camp, went back to U of Ottawa and had himself a very good season in the OUA, attaining first team all-star status @ linebacker. Believe he should make the team, as a replacement for Briggs or Gauthier down the road.

Bret MacDougall after BB training camp last year, went back to U of Windsor and appeared in 8 games in the secondary. Nice size...

The other four that you have listed remained with the Bombers for the year. I like Murphy and Kelly and with another year on the roster, we will see how they develop into CFLer's. Bennett seen the field the most, but as a first round pick I don't know. If you see/saw my earlier comment about my selections this year, that is why. I believe a couple/few of the d-line ends that are available in this year's draft would provide more on a rotation basis, as what we saw last year. Schmekel, based on what I hear/read great character team guy, but need to see more play on the field.

[Blue In BC]

I wouldn't mind possibly drafting Hladik as possible future replacement for Benson. If he's any good as an ST player he might make the AR and see some work as a FB/TE player. Hard to say what the current plan is there regardless of whether to take a run at Hladik.

He's not listed in the top 20 so maybe he might fall in round 3 or 4? I don't know much about him aside from his brother in Vancouver. If he has that drive and athleticism he could be a CFL player.

[dizzycamper]

I wouldn't mind possibly drafting Hladik as possible future replacement for Benson. If he's any good as an ST player he might make the AR and see some work as a FB/TE player. Hard to say what the current plan is there regardless of whether to take a run at Hladik.

He's not listed in the top 20 so maybe he might fall in round 3 or 4? I don't know much about him aside from his brother in Vancouver. If he has that drive and athleticism he could be a CFL player.

Bombers Rd 3 pic, works just fine as I see it....

[Blue In BC]

Bombers Rd 3 pic, works just fine as I see it....

That's the overall pick # 28, so that might be a choice to make. I never know much about the players potentially going to be drafted. Just a bit when articles are posted. That said, we have a need for a player with that skill set.

Whether he's the best choice for that spot of LS and a FB, I don't really know. It will just be something to watch which team has an interest and in what round etc etc. Bombers may have other ideas for that role so seeing who they pick is always interesting.

Benson turns 37 before TC. Just noticed we have the same birthday but I'm literally twice his age. lol While he's probably capable of playing several more years, he may not want to, so having someone in the pipeline is something I'd expect to see this season.

[dizzycamper]

That's the overall pick # 28, so that might be a choice to make. I never know much about the players potentially going to be drafted. Just a bit when articles are posted. That said, we have a need for a player with that skill set.

Whether he's the best choice for that spot of LS and a FB, I don't really know. It will just be something to watch which team has an interest and in what round etc etc. Bombers may have other ideas for that role so seeing who they pick is always interesting.

Benson turns 37 before TC. Just noticed we have the same birthday but I'm literally twice his age. lol While he's probably capable of playing several more years, he may not want to, so having someone in the pipeline is something I'd expect to see this season.

Some of the guys that do the mocks, besides the conversation on these sites are mentioning Chris-Ike out of Delaware as the choice. Chris-Ike combine numbers are very good and what he brings to the football field college wish need to taken into account, but overall for what the Bombers require, Brad Hladik would be a better "fit" in my opinion.

[TecnoGenius]

Whether he's the best choice for that spot of LS and a FB, I don't really know. It will just be something to watch which team has an interest and in what round etc etc. Bombers may have other ideas for that role so seeing who they pick is always interesting.

LS's are plentiful and cheap in FA because their careers can be very long.  Case in point, Benson & Rempel.  And unlike NAT kickers, most NAT LS are pretty darn good at their job.

[Blue In BC]

LS's are plentiful and cheap in FA because their careers can be very long.  Case in point, Benson & Rempel.  And unlike NAT kickers, most NAT LS are pretty darn good at their job.

There are only 9 LS in the league. Yes we found ours in free agency but you can't count on a good one being available when you need one.

[dizzycamper]

There are only 9 LS in the league. Yes we found ours in free agency but you can't count on a good one being available when you need one.

Blue, one of the young LB's that we picked up last year, has a background as a snapper from his college days. Perhaps that area may not be such a concern.

[Blue In BC]

Blue, one of the young LB's that we picked up last year, has a background as a snapper from his college days. Perhaps that area may not be such a concern.

Perhaps. The Bombers may have both short and long term plans. It's not unusual for a LB to be the LS and / or a FB type.

Are you talking about Charbonneau? Looking at his info he appears to have been a good MLB in university. Didn't see anything about LS duties but that would be a bonus. Could be the next Gauthier?

All we know for sure is that Benson is not getting any younger. Hladik could be a choice if they see fit and if he's available at the pick that we feel is a good decision.

IDK. If the player you mentioned wins the job at least as a back up for 2024, that's a bonus.

[TecnoGenius]

Rempel could have kept going a few more seasons.  I think we moved on because of him getting trucked (spurring the "Rempel rule") and maybe he didn't want to get beaten up any longer?

We certainly didn't win much on the age front, moving from Rempel to Benson bought us, what, 2-3 years younger age?  Kind of funny, actually, going from like 38 to 36 or something.  So age wasn't really the huge factor there.

And we had that other guy, the PED guy with the long hyphenated name, named after the President of Gallifrey, right?  We let him go.

I think for LS you want a guy who can just snap well without launching them high.  After that some athleticism or beef is gravy as then he can also be an effective 2nd-last redoubt against a TD return.  That said, I can't recall Rempel ever making a tackle, nor Benson.  Even the kickers make more tackles, it seems.

Again, I'm not worried at all at LS... when we need one, they'll be there.  Worst case is you hang onto Benson until one shows up, or heck I bet Rempel could still do it if we drag him out of the mothballs.

[Pigskin]

Chad Rempel retired at the age of 40. Which a testament to his fitness level, and the factory that he stayed healthy for most of his career. Mike Benson is another guy that works hard and has stayed pretty healthy over his career. Benson is also 6 years younger than Rempel. 

[Blue In BC]

Chad Rempel retired at the age of 40. Which a testament to his fitness level, and the factory that he stayed healthy for most of his career. Mike Benson is another guy that works hard and has stayed pretty healthy over his career. Benson is also 6 years younger than Rempel. 

Benson could well play several more seasons. Like any veteran player it's a question as to when to call it quits. time with family and career post football come into play. Anybody know what that career if for Benson?

Some careers allow to do both with little impact. OTOH, I doubt he's making big $$ playing football.

I'm not expecting him to retire before TC but you can never tell. Logan Bandy retired in Regina and he's only 24.

[dizzycamper]

Benson could well play several more seasons. Like any veteran player it's a question as to when to call it quits. time with family and career post football come into play. Anybody know what that career if for Benson?

Some careers allow to do both with little impact. OTOH, I doubt he's making big $$ playing football.

I'm not expecting him to retire before TC but you can never tell. Logan Bandy retired in Regina and he's only 24.

Yes retirements do happen prior to training camp, but as mentioned above I believe the Bombers have a player available besides Benson who could/would fit the position. Don't get me wrong, Hladiuk would be a valuable addition if available when we would pick.

Although, the D-Line needs of 1 end and tackle for rotation purposes needs to be addressed early in this draft, besides O-line and a receiver. That is four picks, would Hladiuk be available 3rd or 4th round will be the question?

[Pigskin]

Bomber Canadian DTs: Thomas (33) 6'2" 274. Schmekel (24) 6'1" 291. Lawson (25) 6'3" 281. Kornelson (24) 6'3" 240.

Bomber Canadian DEs: Bennett (27) 6'0" 235.

The Bombers have Kornelson listed as a DT and 24o lbs. Can't see him playing DT at 240 lbs.   

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Bomber Canadian DTs: Thomas (33) 6'2" 274. Schmekel (24) 6'1" 291. Lawson (25) 6'3" 281. Kornelson (24) 6'3" 240.

Bomber Canadian DEs: Bennett (27) 6'0" 235.

The Bombers have Kornelson listed as a DT and 24o lbs. Can't see him playing DT at 240 lbs.   

I think their intention is to switch Kornelson to OG.

[Blue In BC]

I think their intention is to switch Kornelson to OG.

Too light unless he was told to bulk up for TC. Somewhat the same as moving Adamson to OL last year. Either way it's a big move and we probably draft 2 OL in this draft.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Looks like Hodge is listening to a board member...

Nope. The Bombers modernized their board polices and procedures in 2013. Probably one of the more overlooked but hugely impactful things they did to turn things around. They advise and help set the organizational objectives and the strategic direction from a business standpoint. They certainly do not know or have a say in which Canadian they are going to draft. If Hodge has a source, it's not the volunteer business people on the board. Can completely assure you of that.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Too light unless he was told to bulk up for TC. Somewhat the same as moving Adamson to OL last year. Either way it's a big move and we probably draft 2 OL in this draft.

You're right it was probably Adamson they intended to switch, my assumption was based on last years remembrance of events.

[dizzycamper]

You're right it was probably Adamson they intended to switch, my assumption was based on last years remembrance of events.

Was Cole Adamson outright released after training camp. He was with the O-line group at training camp.

[ModAdmin]

Was Cole Adamson outright released after training camp. He was with the O-line group at training camp.

He was released last year.  Not currently under contract.