Canadians on Bomber roster

[TecnoGenius]

Randolph struggled a bit but that's to be expected as he moved from RG the previous week to LT, which is a big transition.

Haha, you're being too kind.  He stunk at LT!  Doesn't mean he can't be good in a future year... however, if that's the best we'll get out of him at OT, I'll give a hard pass!  (But we've seen that being designated a week 1 starter and getting all the practice reps with the #1 unit can kick players up a few notches.)

Wallace was fine at RG, but not as good as Randolph or Neuf.  But wasn't that Wallace's year 1?  I don't judge any "normal" OL in year 1.

[TecnoGenius]

OL tend to have longevity that you don't see in other positions. The development curve is are also longer than other spots and continuity is very important. We also don't often see imports that are game ready day 1 but yes they are less expensive.

One problem, though.  In past years, when we weren't going to cups all the time, we'd lose 1 OL to FA maybe every 2 years.  Now we're losing our top NAT OL to FA every single year.

It's hard to draft & dev them fast enough, and hard to get continuity, when you're always being stripped of your best guys.  We've been managing, but steadily falling behind.

Think of how many (extra) games (and cups) we would have won had we had the 2021 OL thru 2024...

[Blue In BC]

One problem, though.  In past years, when we weren't going to cups all the time, we'd lose 1 OL to FA maybe every 2 years.  Now we're losing our top NAT OL to FA every single year.

It's hard to draft & dev them fast enough, and hard to get continuity, when you're always being stripped of your best guys.  We've been managing, but steadily falling behind.

Think of how many (extra) games (and cups) we would have won had we had the 2021 OL thru 2024...

We know that and we struggle to retain some OL but so do other teams. It doesn't change the longevity of the players at the position in the CFL. Barring injury, good ones tend to have successful longer careers which sets a high bar for salary.

Managing rosters and SMS decisions is not easy.

[Jesse]

We know that and we struggle to retain some OL but so do other teams. It doesn't change the longevity of the players at the position in the CFL. Barring injury, good ones tend to have successful longer careers which sets a high bar for salary.

Managing rosters and SMS decisions is not easy.

The career longevity doesn't really matter to us though, it's how long they stay in a Bomber jersey after they're drafted.

People seem to be making the argument that you draft OL over other positions because they have longer careers and therefore have more value, but if you only have the player for that first contract then it offers no additional value, and perhaps less value since we seem to have an easier time retaining other positions.

[Blue In BC]

The career longevity doesn't really matter to us though, it's how long they stay in a Bomber jersey after they're drafted.

People seem to be making the argument that you draft OL over other positions because they have longer careers and therefore have more value, but if you only have the player for that first contract then it offers no additional value, and perhaps less value since we seem to have an easier time retaining other positions.

Sure, but yes and no.

Neufeld is going into his 12th season in Winnipeg. Kolo is going into his 5th and Eli his 3rd. We don't have any idea whether Wallace or Eli will become starters or remain in Winnipeg beyond their initial contracts.

My argument wasn't only based on longevity. I also mentioned learning curve and continuity to make a cohesive unit.

OL are somewhat invisible until they make a mistake. An OL is involved in every play protecting the QB. Every player on offence is involved but not necessarily in as critical an aspect as an OL.

If an OL misses his block the QB may get sacked or injured. A receiver not beating his coverage doesn't mean a play is not successful.

It's just a factor of the ratio and the need to balance an SMS budget. In a broad sense OL are not stars while a RB is the guy getting yardage, 1st downs and scoring.

Most teams will have 5 Canadian OL on their AR even if they only start 3. If they start 4, then they may end up with 6 on their AR.

No other position has that many Canadians on their AR most of them. In the past some teams started 3 Canadian receivers and that meant there were probably 2 Canadian backups. Further back some teams started 3 Canadian LB's, same deal.

The pool size of players that will get drafted and stay in the CFL is greater of OL and DL IMO.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Haha, you're being too kind.  He stunk at LT!  Doesn't mean he can't be good in a future year... however, if that's the best we'll get out of him at OT, I'll give a hard pass! (But we've seen that being designated a week 1 starter and getting all the practice reps with the #1 unit can kick players up a few notches.)

Wallace was fine at RG, but not as good as Randolph or Neuf.  But wasn't that Wallace's year 1?  I don't judge any "normal" OL in year 1.

Randolph didn't do all that bad, especially considering he was in an in-game emergency replacement for Stan and got thrown into the deep end without any preparation to play LT.  It could have been an absolute disaster, kudos to him, by accepting the challenge he moved way up O'Shea's depth chart.

[TecnoGenius]

It's just a factor of the ratio and the need to balance an SMS budget. In a broad sense OL are not stars while a RB is the guy getting yardage, 1st downs and scoring.

They are stars to me!  Probably our best OL are stars to most here on the forum.

But I get your gist, many fans have no idea who have the OL are and don't care.  Many more think of them as interchangeable no-skill people.  Of course, they are wrong.

[TecnoGenius]

Randolph didn't do all that bad, especially considering he was in an in-game emergency replacement for Stan and got thrown into the deep end without any preparation to play LT.  It could have been an absolute disaster, kudos to him, by accepting the challenge he moved way up O'Shea's depth chart.

For sure, don't get me wrong.  He was passable for what was asked, but the fact remains he was letting pressure through like every other pass snap (from memory).  He was more a delay for DL than an impenetrable wall like Stan.

But didn't he have at least a couple starts after that in-game injury relief?  I could have sworn he did, and didn't improve, but I'd have to check the rosters and PVR.  So many OL shuffles last season.

If he mostly gets practice reps and dev at guard, then he acquitted himself pretty well.  Still, don't want him start at OT if that's his level of competence at the moment.  If he mostly gets reps at OT, then Houston we have a problem.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

For sure, don't get me wrong.  He was passable for what was asked, but the fact remains he was letting pressure through like every other pass snap (from memory).  He was more a delay for DL than an impenetrable wall like Stan.

But didn't he have at least a couple starts after that in-game injury relief?  I could have sworn he did, and didn't improve, but I'd have to check the rosters and PVR.  So many OL shuffles last season.

If he mostly gets practice reps and dev at guard, then he acquitted himself pretty well.  Still, don't want him start at OT if that's his level of competence at the moment.  If he mostly gets reps at OT, then Houston we have a problem.

Stan also sat out the following week against the Riders in the LDC and Randolph played in his spot again, so that's probably the best game to judge his abilities at the time as he at least had a modicum of preparation.  As a team they only gave up 2 sacks, pretty good for a team down 2 starters as Neuf also sat out. Other than that I don't recall Stan missing a single snap the rest of the season.

[Pigskin]

Stan also sat out the following week against the Riders in the LDC and Randolph played in his spot again, so that's probably the best game to judge his abilities at the time as at least he had a modicum of preparation.  As a team they only gave up 2 sacks, pretty good for a team down 2 starters as Neuf also sat out. Other than that I don't recall Stan missing a single snap the rest of the season.

Didn't SB66 sit out the LDC and the Banjo Bowl.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Didn't SB66 sit out the LDC and the Banjo Bowl.

Yes, it appears he did, that makes 3 full games at LT for Randolph, again they only gave up 2 sacks.

[dd]

Yes, it appears he did, that makes 3 full games at LT for Randolph, again they only gave up 2 sacks.

I thought he did ok. With Lofton and Bryant we have our starting tackles and Randolph is there for injuries, tough not to start him in the LG spot, but what do you do with NAT Wallace?? I think Randolph is the better lineman but if we have ratio trouble, Wallace will be in

[TecnoGenius]

Yes, it appears he did, that makes 3 full games at LT for Randolph, again they only gave up 2 sacks.

pressures != sacks

I also think we quickly adjusted to quick pass / run-heavy game for those games.  Now that I know which games they are, I'll see if I can go back and watch with an eye to the OL.

[TecnoGenius]

I thought he did ok. With Lofton and Bryant we have our starting tackles and Randolph is there for injuries, tough not to start him in the LG spot, but what do you do with NAT Wallace?? I think Randolph is the better lineman but if we have ratio trouble, Wallace will be in

In the past we've sometimes let our dev guys dev for 3 seasons.  We don't always start a NAT DP in year 1 or 2.  Sure, you'd like to be able to, but I don't think it's a bad thing if you don't.

Plus, if he has great upside, there's some strategic AR finagling you can do here to keep his price down come next FA... Why show everyone he's the next Desjar and lose him to big $$ FA in 10 months?

Again, if Randolph shows well at LG, still no team will want him.  But if Wallace shows well then he'll get the next "Dobson deal".  Instead, let him dev some more and then sign him to 2 years in FA26 at a very low price.

It also could turn out Wallace is (just) the next Eli: a good-priced, reliable, jumbo/TE guy.  We've seen that before with Spooner, etc.  Some guys just aren't made to be legit starters.

[TecnoGenius]

I still think if an OT gets injured it's Neuf shuffling to his spot.  Neuf did better at his few times at OT than Randolph.  Neuf is at least as good as Rice at that position, and Rice started about 3/4 of MTL's cup-winning season.